The Junior Lake thread

[Guest]

I said this in the gam thread, but I think there are some players for whom a platoon is not good. Lake may be one. He's completely out of control in the batter's box. He either needs to adjust or learn some Japanese.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I said this in the gam thread, but I think there are some players for whom a platoon is not good. Lake may be one. He's completely out of control in the batter's box. He either needs to adjust or learn some Japanese.

 

Facing MLB pitching is not good for Lake.

[jersey cubs fan]

we should have a gams thread

[Guest]

we should have a gams thread

It's a tree thing.

 

Game threads would include every single woman on Fox News not named Gretta.

[Guest]

Lake's started 9 of 13 games and pinch hit in the other 4. While that's not quite a 500 PA pace, I'm not sure that's enough interruption that I buy that his playing time is working against him.

[flyseye]

Sadly, while all of the negatives about Lake may be true, he is still our most productive ML outfielder at this point.

[neely crenshaw]

He is currently 3rd on the team in Ops, it hasn't been pretty but he is.

His game definitely has it's ebbs and flows for sure.

His value to us will come when his production isn't the third best.

If we can have his current production..maybe a little more consistent, improved defense and then add in 2or 3 solid bats to the lineup, his roller coaster is much more tolerable.

For instance If Olt can be a bit better than serviceable, Baez and Bryant are what we hope they are, then we have something.

You could have a line up of either 2-5 or 3-6 being Castro,Baez, Bryant and Rizzo- All potential .800+ Ops guys, and hopefully a couple of them go even higher.

Olt, Castillo and Lake could then be spread around 2,6,7 or 8 depending on who else is in the lineup.

Would not be too bad to trot out a 7 or 8 hole hitter like Lake or Castillo with an OPS of .750.

[sneakypower]

Lake's career 650 PA pace for his career is still 2.95 WAR (2.62 this season)

 

but he hasn't actually helped the team nearly as much as that may imply

http://i.imgur.com/BbxrQnI.png

 

so despite being well above average in a context-neutral setting, he's been below average on a per-play basis (WPA); this is driven by a poor clutch score (How much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment): 2nd-worst on the team during that time, trailing only Ryan Sweeney

 

but he's still the best OF on the team (faint praise), so you'll want to keep playing him, but for whatever reason that you want to theorize he's clearly been hopelessly inept in run-producing situations, so i'd greatly prefer just batting him leadoff until he proves ineffective there, in which case we'll hopefully have an upgrade available by then

 

also, he's struck out in 12 of 17 career pinch-hit ABs, which is kind of amazing

[mul21]

Lake's career 650 PA pace for his career is still 2.95 WAR (2.62 this season)

 

but he hasn't actually helped the team nearly as much as that may imply

http://i.imgur.com/BbxrQnI.png

 

so despite being well above average in a context-neutral setting, he's been below average on a per-play basis (WPA); this is driven by a poor clutch score (How much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment): 2nd-worst on the team during that time, trailing only Ryan Sweeney

 

but he's still the best OF on the team (faint praise), so you'll want to keep playing him, but for whatever reason that you want to theorize he's clearly been hopelessly inept in run-producing situations, so i'd greatly prefer just batting him leadoff until he proves ineffective there, in which case we'll hopefully have an upgrade available by then

 

also, he's struck out in 12 of 17 career pinch-hit ABs, which is kind of amazing

 

I had that exact thought as soon as I saw your chart. That's an amazingly difficult feat to accomplish over that many PA without anything close to regression to the mean.

[neely crenshaw]

Are you making a conclusion based on 66 at bats with RISP?

 

Rizzo was worse when he was a rook, and almost as bad last year.

 

2.0 war is major league starter caliber. Last year we had 2 guys post that right?

At least he is performing like a regular right now.

So many where fired up about Valbuena and Schierholtz, and they posted a 1.6 and 1.3 last season.

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh my God, AGAIN with the "oh yeah, well Rizzo did/didn't do this, AH-HAAAAAAH!" response. Why the hell is Rizzo your metric for player success or failure?

 

And nobody was "fired up" over Schierholtz or Valbuena last year; the former got a "wow, who expected this from Nate Schierholtz" reaction and the latter a "hey, he might be serviceable at 3B or 2B until a better option comes along."

Edited May 13, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

Are you making a conclusion based on 66 at bats with RISP?

 

Rizzo was worse when he was a rook, and almost as bad last year.

 

2.0 war is major league starter caliber. Last year we had 2 guys post that right?

At least he is performing like a regular right now.

So many where fired up about Valbuena and Schierholtz, and they posted a 1.6 and 1.3 last season.

 

People were fired up about them? Many of them? So many?

 

Anyway, Valbuena (who was actually worth 2 fWAR as it was), put up the 1.6 bWAR in 108 games. That puts him solidly past a 2 win full season benchmark by either system.

[Guest]

Oh my God, AGAIN with the "oh yeah, well Rizzo did/didn't do this, AH-HAAAAAAH!" response. Why the hell is Rizzo your metric for player success or failure?

 

because generational talent

[jersey cubs fan]

Oh my God, AGAIN with the "oh yeah, well Rizzo did/didn't do this, AH-HAAAAAAH!" response. Why the hell is Rizzo your metric for player success or failure?

He's a generational talent.

[jersey cubs fan]

Oh my God, AGAIN with the "oh yeah, well Rizzo did/didn't do this, AH-HAAAAAAH!" response. Why the hell is Rizzo your metric for player success or failure?

 

because generational talent

damn you

[Sammy Sofa]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

This is the scary part.

 

Someday when we're trying to be good, we're going to need a cheap RFer or 3b or 2b and we're going to get a Nate Schierholtz (-0.6 fWAR this year) or Ian Stewart of Brent Lillibridge, and that might just cost us a playoff spot or a division.

[Guest]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

This is the scary part.

 

Someday when we're trying to be good, we're going to need a cheap RFer or 3b or 2b and we're going to get a Nate Schierholtz (-0.6 fWAR this year) or Ian Stewart of Brent Lillibridge, and that might just cost us a playoff spot or a division.

 

Or maybe we'll get a Luis Valbuena.

[Sammy Sofa]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

This is the scary part.

 

Someday when we're trying to be good, we're going to need a cheap RFer or 3b or 2b and we're going to get a Nate Schierholtz (-0.6 fWAR this year) or Ian Stewart of Brent Lillibridge, and that might just cost us a playoff spot or a division.

 

Or maybe we'll get a Luis Valbuena.

 

He was literally the only one I could think of. Is that really what we should be expecting over 3 seasons (yes, I'm already assuming that nobody is breaking out from the current crop of mutts)?

[jersey cubs fan]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

This is the scary part.

 

Someday when we're trying to be good, we're going to need a cheap RFer or 3b or 2b and we're going to get a Nate Schierholtz (-0.6 fWAR this year) or Ian Stewart of Brent Lillibridge, and that might just cost us a playoff spot or a division.

 

Eh, this failure to find those diamonds has also been during the era of them trying to lose, so did they really try to find diamonds that would muck up the plan?

[Guest]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

This is the scary part.

 

Someday when we're trying to be good, we're going to need a cheap RFer or 3b or 2b and we're going to get a Nate Schierholtz (-0.6 fWAR this year) or Ian Stewart of Brent Lillibridge, and that might just cost us a playoff spot or a division.

 

Or maybe we'll get a Luis Valbuena.

 

He was literally the only one I could think of. Is that really what we should be expecting over 3 seasons (yes, I'm already assuming that nobody is breaking out from the current crop of mutts)?

 

Guessing you're just limiting it to position players then?

[Sammy Sofa]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

This is the scary part.

 

Someday when we're trying to be good, we're going to need a cheap RFer or 3b or 2b and we're going to get a Nate Schierholtz (-0.6 fWAR this year) or Ian Stewart of Brent Lillibridge, and that might just cost us a playoff spot or a division.

 

Or maybe we'll get a Luis Valbuena.

 

He was literally the only one I could think of. Is that really what we should be expecting over 3 seasons (yes, I'm already assuming that nobody is breaking out from the current crop of mutts)?

 

Guessing you're just limiting it to position players then?

 

Well, yeah, I was trying to make it clear that I was focusing on the offense; from a pitching standpoint they've done a very good job in the regard, but the end product is EXTREMELY lopsided. I never thought we'd see them field an OF this destitute of any kind of sustainable talent this far into their tenure.

[Guest]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

This is the scary part.

 

Someday when we're trying to be good, we're going to need a cheap RFer or 3b or 2b and we're going to get a Nate Schierholtz (-0.6 fWAR this year) or Ian Stewart of Brent Lillibridge, and that might just cost us a playoff spot or a division.

 

Or maybe we'll get a Luis Valbuena.

 

He was literally the only one I could think of. Is that really what we should be expecting over 3 seasons (yes, I'm already assuming that nobody is breaking out from the current crop of mutts)?

 

Making decisions on moves that panned out on May 13 seems a bit silly. In past years you've had Valbuena, Sweeney, Schierholtz, Murphy, Ransom, and Bogusevic(who became Ruggiano) turn out well; and if we must judge this year already, Bonifacio goes in the plus column too.

[Sammy Sofa]

My main takeaway these days has been that unless we're talking about Castro or Rizzo, any offensive success on the Cubs is managing to come from a, at the very least, staggeringly flawed and unsustainable player. I thought a big plus of this FO was that they were going to be able to find diamond in the rough types and not just "OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

This is the scary part.

 

Someday when we're trying to be good, we're going to need a cheap RFer or 3b or 2b and we're going to get a Nate Schierholtz (-0.6 fWAR this year) or Ian Stewart of Brent Lillibridge, and that might just cost us a playoff spot or a division.

 

Or maybe we'll get a Luis Valbuena.

 

He was literally the only one I could think of. Is that really what we should be expecting over 3 seasons (yes, I'm already assuming that nobody is breaking out from the current crop of mutts)?

 

Making decisions on moves that panned out on May 13 seems a bit silly. In past years you've had Valbuena, Sweeney, Schierholtz, Murphy, Ransom, and Bogusevic(who became Ruggiano) turn out well; and if we must judge this year already, Bonifacio goes in the plus column too.

 

"OK, this person maybe will be serviceable for the better part of a season."

 

I'm wrong in my expectations that given the glut of needs on this team they would have found someone beyond Valbuena in terms of having sustained offensive success?

[Guest]

I'm wrong in my expectations that given the glut of needs on this team they would have found someone beyond Valbuena in terms of having sustained offensive success?

 

If you're putting 2014 in the books already, then yeah. Sweeney, Schierholtz, and Bogusevic turned Ruggiano being specific examples of guys likely to provide value covering multiple years.