5/22 stupid cubs (arrieta) @ padres (stults) 9:10cdt csn

[Sammy Sofa]

My hilarious bias against tinyface aside, Lake being more valuable than Rizzo over any kind of significant period simply isn't a good thing because it means that one of the players that they're obviously really, really, really, REALLY counting on as being one of their cornerstones really, really, REALLY underperformed to the point that hackmonster Junior Lake actually one-upped him. That's indicative of Rizzo being underwhelming at one point and the Cubs being worse off, not "yay, Junior Lake is actually an answer to the hideous question of the OF!"

[Hairyducked Idiot]

but he actually is a good starter, is the point here

 

If having 400 insanely fluky PAs makes you a good starter, then he's been a good starter.

 

But he's probably not going to be anymore.

[Guest]

My hilarious bias against tinyface aside, Lake being more valuable than Rizzo over any kind of significant period simply isn't a good thing because it means that one of the players that they're obviously really, really, really, REALLY counting on as being one of their cornerstones really, really, REALLY underperformed to the point that hackmonster Junior Lake actually one-upped him. That's indicative of Rizzo being underwhelming at one point and the Cubs being worse off, not "yay, Junior Lake is actually a good starter!"

 

Obviously, Rizzo's results were disappointing last year - especially in the last 3/4 or so of the season (which is the sample sneaky is talking about) - a lot of it luck based. He has made some adjustments and appears to be even better this year, so that's good.

 

Lake, however, despite his awful peripherals that make it seem unsustainable, has been decently productive in terms of WAR (1.7 in 105 games, which is a 2.6 win pace - aka above average starter).

[sneakypower]

but he actually is a good starter, is the point here

 

If having 400 insanely fluky PAs makes you a good starter, then he's been a good starter.

 

But he's probably not going to be anymore.

yeah, you said that 2 months ago, if i recall right that was when you were predicting a -1 WAR season and declared Coghlan (-.4 fWAR), Sweeney (-.5 fWAR), Kalish (-.4 fWAR), Darnell McDonald (lol), etc. as clearly better alternatives

 

you're not needed here

[Hairyducked Idiot]

but he actually is a good starter, is the point here

 

If having 400 insanely fluky PAs makes you a good starter, then he's been a good starter.

 

But he's probably not going to be anymore.

yeah, you said that 2 months ago, if i recall right that was when you were predicting a -1 WAR season and declared Coghlan (-.4 fWAR), Sweeney (-.5 fWAR), Kalish (-.4 fWAR), Darnell McDonald (lol), etc. as clearly better alternatives

 

you're not needed here

 

 

Whether I'm needed or not, I'm right.

[neely crenshaw]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

Now it's still possible for pitchers/teams to make adjustments to him

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

 

no it isn't

[imb]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

 

no it isn't

 

i wish the five guys you proclaimed to be better options than junior lake would also easily luck into 400 or so at bats.

[Sammy Sofa]

My hilarious bias against tinyface aside, Lake being more valuable than Rizzo over any kind of significant period simply isn't a good thing because it means that one of the players that they're obviously really, really, really, REALLY counting on as being one of their cornerstones really, really, REALLY underperformed to the point that hackmonster Junior Lake actually one-upped him. That's indicative of Rizzo being underwhelming at one point and the Cubs being worse off, not "yay, Junior Lake is actually a good starter!"

 

Obviously, Rizzo's results were disappointing last year - especially in the last 3/4 or so of the season (which is the sample sneaky is talking about) - a lot of it luck based. He has made some adjustments and appears to be even better this year, so that's good.

 

I get that, but just dropping "LOL Lake's been more valuable than Rizzo over period X" isn't necessarily a good thing. The main takeaway to me is that meant that a critical player had a down period.

 

Lake, however, despite his awful peripherals that make it seem unsustainable, has been decently productive in terms of WAR (1.7 in 105 games, which is a 2.6 win pace - aka above average starter).

 

Which is great (and I'd be stunned if it lasted if he actually became a fulltime player), but it's still indicative of the Cubs being in a shitty position if he's a more valuable player than Rizzo. Rizzo NEEDS to be more valuable than Lake, or Lake being more valuable needs to mean that Lake is kicking ass and not simply being league average or above average.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[imb]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

 

no it isn't

 

i wish the five guys you proclaimed to be better options than junior lake would also easily fluke as much as lake has.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

 

no it isn't

 

i wish the five guys you proclaimed to be better options than junior lake would also easily luck into 400 or so at bats.

 

A lot of them have at some point in their career. Coghlan's 2009, Sweeney's 2008-2009.

[imb]

lot of good that's doing us

[Hairyducked Idiot]

lot of good that's doing us

 

*shrug* Lake's fluky 2.5 wins aren't exactly changing our world.

[imb]

you wont be saying that when samardzija gives us a hometown discount at lake's behest

[Sammy Sofa]

you wont be saying that when samardzija gives us a hometown discount at lake's behest

 

The Junior Lake seems like a real cool dude.

[ScrubMD]

Just because Lake has been good and everyone Kyle said was better has been way way worse, which means Kyle was wrong about literally everything (aka: the "classic Kyle"), doesn't mean that Kyle has to admit he was wrong.

[DiamondMind]

1. Emilio Bonifacio (S) CF

2. Junior Lake ® LF

3. Anthony Rizzo (L) 1B

4. Starlin Castro ® SS

5. Mike Olt ® 3B

6. Welington Castillo ® C

7. Nate Schierholtz (L) RF

8. Darwin Barney ® 2B

9. Jake Arrieta ® P

 

 

1. Everth Cabrera (S) SS

2. Cameron Maybin ® CF

3. Seth Smith (L) LF

4. Chase Headley (S) 3B

5. Yonder Alonso (L) 1B

6. Jedd Gyorko ® 2B

7. Will Venable (L) RF

8. Nick Hundley ® C

9. Eric Stults (L) P

Edited May 23, 2014 by DiamondMind

[davell]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

 

no it isn't

 

I'm fairly certain you said recently things start to sustain around that number and that if he had kept it up, he'd be an interesting case.

[mul21]

Can we just trade out Barney's hamstring for Soler's so he can be on the DL and Soler can play? I'm so tired of seeing him in the lineup.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

 

no it isn't

 

I'm fairly certain you said recently things start to sustain around that number and that if he had kept it up, he'd be an interesting case.

Only if it fit his agenda at the time.

[sneakypower]

Can we just trade out Barney's hamstring for Soler's so he can be on the DL and Soler can play? I'm so tired of seeing him in the lineup.

in substituting any of Barney's feeble muscles, Soler would probably start running like the guy from QWOP

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

 

no it isn't

 

I'm fairly certain you said recently things start to sustain around that number and that if he had kept it up, he'd be an interesting case.

 

I am 100% positive that I didn't say "things" start to sustain around that number. That's way too vague. Different things sustain at different rates.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Just because Lake has been good and everyone Kyle said was better has been way way worse, which means Kyle was wrong about literally everything (aka: the "classic Kyle"), doesn't mean that Kyle has to admit he was wrong.

 

Good. Because I wasn't wrong. It doesn't mean that.

 

He's not going to sustain a .387 BABIP. And when it stops, so does his value, because he's a sub-.300 OBP guy as it is.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Hairyducked Idiot

[davell]

It's really hard to have 400 fluky plate appearances.

 

no it isn't

 

I'm fairly certain you said recently things start to sustain around that number and that if he had kept it up, he'd be an interesting case.

 

I am 100% positive that I didn't say "things" start to sustain around that number. That's way too vague. Different things sustain at different rates.

 

I'm sure it was something about Lake, his current productivity, and 400 at bats. Could definitely be off on the sustaining part.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm sure it was something about Lake, his current productivity, and 400 at bats. Could definitely be off on the sustaining part.

 

You're gonna have to find it. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, which is often, but I really don't remember saying anything of the sort. Maybe I did, but I genuinely don't remember it.

 

Nothing Lake does well that I can think of stablizes around 400 PAs. All he does well is get an absurd BABIP (which can easily take over 1,000 PAs to stabilize) and show surprising power for a guy who swings and misses an absurd amount of the time.