Random Cubs Musings

[KingCubsFan]

Well, most of the power isn't at the MLB level yet, so I'm not sure it's an either/or thing. There's a pretty clear dichotomy with the guys that the front office inherited and those that they acquired. Castro, Castillo, Barney, Lake, Soriano, maybe even Baez, those guys have not been known for their OBP or plate discipline, and may not ever be in some cases. When you look at the guys they've acquired though, Rizzo, Valbuena, Sweeney, Olt, DeJesus, Bryant, Soler; it's a lot clearer that mastery of the strike zone(and therefore OBP) is a bigger focus, and that should filter through to the big league team as the power graduates too.

Yeah, if you look at the BB% for the team last year, there's a pretty clear distinction between the Epstein and pre-Epstein guys.

 

Valbuena: 13.6%

Rizzo: 11%

Borbon (not sure if I should count him): 10.3

DeJesus: 9.1%

Navarro: 8.6%

Sweeney: 8%

Castillo: 7.9%

Barney: 6.5%

Schierholz: 5.8%

Lake: 5.1%

Castro: 4.3%

Soriano: 3.9%

[neely crenshaw]

I think you may want to look deeper into the Valbuena stats before calling him such an upgrade.

Most of his .322 as a Cub came in 2 months at the start of last year. When he had around a .380 OB%. He then followed that up with 2 months of sub .300. Seems like he was reverting to his norm, when he missed a month.

As was said he is barely better than Barney lifetime .302 to .293.

Looking at his minor league stats his OB% is good, but if you look closer, most of that is because his average was over .300 not because he found ways to get on.

Unless you see him significantly improving his average, it sure looks like his OB% will be at the low end of the .300's.

 

Any value they have is as a platoon with each other. If they performed as they did last year, with Valbuena taking more at bats as a lefty, you could hope to have a .320-.330 OB%, and a low .700's OBS which would be pretty solid out of your 2b, especially with two good defenders.

[Sammy Sofa]

LOOK DEEPER, TT.

[neely crenshaw]

add anything....

[neely crenshaw]

again, can we stick to baseball Edited March 25, 2014 by neely crenshaw

[jersey cubs fan]

....

[Sammy Sofa]

How about you stop assuming that people here have no idea how to or any inkling to look up player splits. Presenting basic stuff that everyone has seen isn't the devastating insight you think it is. I mean, for one, you don't even seem to understand how seasonal stats work; players are of course going to typically fluctuate to end up with the numbers they end up with. And comparing Valbuena and Barney's lifetime stats assumes they've had similar career tracts and that they are similar players.

[Sammy Sofa]

But seriously, I am super happy that neely is back and baseball is back.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Splits are pointless. The stats are what they are. And that goes both ways.

[Thed Hoyerstein]

Any value they have is as a platoon with each other. If they performed as they did last year, with Valbuena taking more at bats as a lefty, you could hope to have a .320-.330 OB%, and a low .700's OBS which would be pretty solid out of your 2b, especially with two good defenders.

 

ummmmm

[mul21]

Any value they have is as a platoon with each other. If they performed as they did last year, with Valbuena taking more at bats as a lefty, you could hope to have a .320-.330 OB%, and a low .700's OBS which would be pretty solid out of your 2b, especially with two good defenders.

 

ummmmm

 

That's about the only part of that that made sense. He's saying that because Valbuena is the lefty, he'll get more PA.

[Guest]

Valbuena has reverse platoon splits

 

Just making sure everybody realizes this

[neely crenshaw]

Nuts, I understand that guys monthly splits are bound to fluctuate.

However, when you are looking at a guy who has a career OB% around .300, and he puts up 2 months of huge numbers, but then falls flat after that, doesn't that tell you he is probably still the .300 OB% guy not the .380 one? That's why I looked at the splits.

 

If he had a history of that type of OB% then you could say it's just a couple down months, but it's the hot April and May that are different than anything he's done in his career not the other way around.

 

Even in the minors when he had a very good OB% it was his hitting not his walks that put him there. His walks were basically the same as what he did last year. His OB% was bumped by his .300 plus BA, so unless he changes from his sub .220 BA, I don't see how we can expect him to get to .330 OB% as a full time player- as a platoon it's very possible.

 

It seems that the "splits" say he was reverting to his norm before he was injured. Maybe he can come out and do it again, and do it for all season, it just doesn't seem likely.

[Guest]

Nuts, I understand that guys monthly splits are bound to fluctuate.

However, when you are looking at a guy who has a career OB% around .300, and he puts up 2 months of huge numbers, but then falls flat after that, doesn't that tell you he is probably still the .300 OB% guy not the .380 one? That's why I looked at the splits.

 

 

Nope.

[Guest]

- No one is saying that Valbuena and Barney shouldn't platoon.

 

- Valbuena's 700 PAs where he was awful at age 23-24 are simply not as relevant as his success at age 26-27, especially when noting his pedigree as prospect.

 

- In the same way, we have to note Barney's declining offensive performance as a trend. Not as proof of irreversible decline, but an indicator that maybe his career numbers aren't representative of his current abilities.

 

- To stay in the original context of "acquired players are more likely to be better OBP guys because they are more selective and take better at bats": Valbuena had 53 walks in 391 PA last year. Barney has 53 walks in his last 783 PA.

 

- ZiPS projects Valbuena for a .325 OBP, Barney for .299, mostly thanks to Valbuena's walk rate, which projects to remain exactly double Barney's.

 

 

Again, the ideal infield at this point has Olt at 3B and Valbuena/Barney platooning at 2B. That wasn't the point. The point was the whole answer to "why haven't Theo Epstein's Cubs been better at getting on base?" is that they haven't added any core players that they selected(draft, trade, or FA) besides Rizzo, but the marginal players they have added are much better at working good at bats and getting on base than their contemporaries that are left over from the Hendry era.

[Guest]

Valbuena has reverse platoon splits

 

Just making sure everybody realizes this

 

In his horrific 2010 he had 52 very strong PA against LHP. Every other year where he's seen regular time he's been a better hitter against RHP, I'm comfortable in saying I don't think he's someone you can project as an even or reverse split going forward.

[neely crenshaw]

Valbuena has reverse platoon splits

 

Just making sure everybody realizes this

 

Yes, but not last year. You can say that for his career but you have to also look at the fact that he has 189 career at bats vs a lefty, and almost 1300 vs a righty. It's a little easier to say you have an idea of what he'd do as a lefty.

You're also looking at about 30 at bats a year vs a righty, not sure you can read anything that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The question wasn't:

 

"Why aren't the Cubs slightly better at getting on base than they would be if they'd fielded nothing but Hendry leftovers?"

 

It was "Why do we have massive OBP problems?"

 

And we do, even if it is better than it would theoretically be if they fielded a team made entirely of leftovers from Hendry.

 

Luis Valbuena and Mike Olt in your lineup may make your OBP a little better than it otherwise would be, but they don't stop it from being a massive problem.

 

Epstein has had three offseasons to add whatever types of players he wants to the team. The answer to every "why isn't this better?" question can't be "because Hendry."

[Guest]

The question wasn't:

 

"Why aren't the Cubs slightly better at getting on base than they would be if they'd fielded nothing but Hendry leftovers?"

 

It was "Why do we have massive OBP problems?"

 

And we do, even if it is better than it would theoretically be if they fielded a team made entirely of leftovers from Hendry.

 

The answer to your question is pretty obvious.

 

They favor guys who have a good disciplined plate approach. We don't have high OBP's because we don't have many good players.

[Guest]

The question wasn't:

 

"Why aren't the Cubs slightly better at getting on base than they would be if they'd fielded nothing but Hendry leftovers?"

 

It was "Why do we have massive OBP problems?"

 

And we do, even if it is better than it would theoretically be if they fielded a team made entirely of leftovers from Hendry.

 

Luis Valbuena and Mike Olt in your lineup may make your OBP a little better than it otherwise would be, but they don't stop it from being a massive problem.

 

Epstein has had three offseasons to add whatever types of players he wants to the team. The answer to every "why isn't this better?" question can't be "because Hendry."

 

We're talking about the same thing here. The reason they have OBP problems is because they haven't added core players externally(by not spending money or trade assets to do so), so the only OBP upgrades they've made externally have been marginal(of the Barney to Valbuena variety). The remaining players and farm system have provided no help on that front either, for probably obvious reasons. That's mostly Epstein/Hoyer not adding longer-term pieces to the MLB roster(for reasons debated to death), and partially getting no help from what was left over.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That's a lot of it.

 

But maybe I'm just being a pessimist, but I see a lot of meh-to-decent OBP in our top prospects, too. Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

[neely crenshaw]

Tiger, does it say if they project Valbuena to play full time?

I think those stats would be pretty close for both if they platooned. I do expect Barney to bounce back from last year, but honestly a bounce back would be .250-.260 with a low .300's OB%.

I can't see Valbuena posting that level if he plays anything more than a modified platoon.

[neely crenshaw]

That's a lot of it.

 

But maybe I'm just being a pessimist, but I see a lot of meh-to-decent OBP in our top prospects, too. Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

 

 

Hoping that our main prospects provide the firepower, and then it seems it would be easier to add a OBP guy rather than getting big bats. There are a lot of guys in the .330-.350 range that would not get the big FA money.

I guess if we are lacking a part, it'll be cheaper to get those guys.

[Guest]

Tiger, does it say if they project Valbuena to play full time?

I think those stats would be pretty close for both if they platooned. I do expect Barney to bounce back from last year, but honestly a bounce back would be .250-.260 with a low .300's OB%.

I can't see Valbuena posting that level if he plays anything more than a modified platoon.

 

ZiPS projects that in 481 PA for Valbuena and 596 for Barney. Even assuming the difference is entirely like-handed pitchers, at the rate Valbuena's hit them the last two years(which remember, is worse than his career numbers against LHP), his OBP over 596 PA would still be .322.

[neely crenshaw]

I have to say that's an interesting split of at bats. Not what I would think of the top of my head. It seems like it would be reversed. Obviously they aren't looking at it as a platoon at either spot(2b or 3b).