2006 Cubs and Juan Pierre??

[Bull]

also, if pie and pierre are going to be in the same outfield, lets go ahead and put pie in center.

Pierre in left is the biggest waste of that position ever.

fielders...

Murton > Pierre

 

We all love Matt Murton, but that's ridiculous.

 

Not at all. Pierre is not very good.

 

Thirded

[Fanatic3332000]

Why are we talking Brian Giles, i know it is a weak year for outfielders, but wouldn't you think the Cubs would try to trade for someone better than him? The guy is 34 years old, salary is 8 million plus this year, and he has 11 homers and 57 rbis, those are michael barrett like numbers....pierre is not the answer either, i'd rather have murton over him, keep patterson in center or package him, his swing looks a lot flatter than what it was yesterday.....

 

I don't care how many home runs or RBI's the guy has, he's hitting .289/.418/.487/.905, and that's at a park that is killer against left handers. Away from Petco he's hitting a ridiculous .333/.459/.588/1.047.[/quote

]

Quick question: What is Carl Crawford's contract situation, did he just sign long term with the D Rays?....he would be a good outfielder with his speed if you put him in center...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Why are we talking Brian Giles, i know it is a weak year for outfielders, but wouldn't you think the Cubs would try to trade for someone better than him? The guy is 34 years old, salary is 8 million plus this year, and he has 11 homers and 57 rbis, those are michael barrett like numbers....pierre is not the answer either, i'd rather have murton over him, keep patterson in center or package him, his swing looks a lot flatter than what it was yesterday.....

 

I don't care how many home runs or RBI's the guy has, he's hitting .289/.418/.487/.905, and that's at a park that is killer against left handers. Away from Petco he's hitting a ridiculous .333/.459/.588/1.047.

Quick question: What is Carl Crawford's contract situation, did he just sign long term with the D Rays?....he would be a good outfielder with his speed if you put him in center...

 

I've never been a huge fan of Crawford's, but yes, he signed an extension earlier this year that runs through 2008 with options for 2009 and 2010.

[brinoch]

Here's a real simple chart to keep in mind that I think is reflective of the extreme majority of the board:

 

Hit>Walk>Out

 

Characterizing people as preferring walks to hits is a ridiculous strawman argument, and I can't stand by and let it pass. I can't recall anyone saying such a thing. What people *do* prefer are hitters who have the plate discipline to take pitches -- and, yes, walks -- rather than swing at pitcher's pitches and make outs. A perfect example of this debate is Jose Macias vs. Todd Walker, or Neifi Perez vs. Jeromy Burnitz. Their averages are about in the same neighborhood, but Walker and Burnitz are head and shoulders above Macias and Perez, respectively.

 

On base percentage is arguably the most important individual offensive metric. Walks are an integral part of that -- as are hits. But a guy who only gets on base via hits isn't as valuable, offensively, as one who takes a good number of walks.

 

So the statement saying his OBP is "inflated" by average is not saying that?? That is exactly what that statement is suggesting.

 

The statement (paraphrased) it doesn't matter how you get on base as long as you do, a hit is as good as a walk; has been used more than once on these boards. Check the numerous Dunn threads and you will find several examples of this.

 

Where in my post did I say a walk was a bad thing??

 

I am not sure what the point of all your player comparisons are as in my post I stated "all things being equal". So if two players have identical OBP's I'll take the one with the higher batting average everyday of the week; again "all things being equal". So if one of them has 60hrs and the other has 2hrs....well then that changes things.

 

Maybe you don't have to stand for the argument but maybe you can pull up a chair and give it a better read next time.

 

You know, you're cruising for a bruising. Seriously. I have no patience for this kind of posting. If you really want to tangle, we can get into it, but if you continue deliberately misrepresenting my words and refuse to read the context of my post, I will end this debate because I simply refuse to participate in ridiculous bantering and misinterpretation. I don't really have any issue with anything in your original post other than the strawman argument. Those posts you cite in the Dunn argument, the ones where people are saying that walks are better than hits -- please, find them and cite them.

 

So, then, how is this a debate between you and me? Why are you being a smart-ass and trying to irritate me for no purpose or gain? Read my post. I'm knocking down a strawman that rears its head time and again about the "preference of the board" with respect to walks and hits. My chart is a simple support of your contention, though you evidently didn't recognize it. There's a reason I didn't quote posts -- I wasn't singling out one poster or post. Now, your exaggerated statement that "some on this board seem to think otherwise" is something I don't agree with, and serves as a strawman argument -- which is not acceptable. I really don't think anyone on this board believes that walks are better than hits. And if you think some do, then I challenge you to demonstrate such a preference, rather than making a claim unsupported.

 

Some other random, variable thoughts:

 

1. Saying a walk is as good as a hit is not the same as saying a walk is better than a hit. I agree with you, that a hit is better than a walk, as was ably demonstrated in my post: Hit>Walk>Out. Obviously, as both hits and walks are better than outs, both would be acceptable outcomes. However, a hit is preferable, all in all.

 

2. OBP inflated by AVG is poorly phrased. I think, from the context, that O_O means an OBP inflated by high AVG only supported by an abnormal BABIP, but I could be wrong. I do not agree that anyone's OBP can be "inflated" by AVG -- or walks. Given that they are both rather integral parts of OBP, I find it difficult to accept the contention that either "inflates" OBP.

 

3. Can you find me a statement in my post that says anything about chopsx says walks are bad? Right. Because I didn't make that statement; nor did I attempt to slyly infer it.

 

4. I will not tolerate insulting statements which denigrate my reading comprehension. Nor will I accept hostile, inflammatory responses looking to create reaction. I can read and understand, thank you very much. Indeed, I read your post and understood it just fine.

[brinoch]

Here's a real simple chart to keep in mind that I think is reflective of the extreme majority of the board:

 

 

You are welcome.

 

Hmm. Nice try. And this was in reference to you how?

 

Thank you for playing.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You know, you're cruising for a bruising. Seriously. I have no patience for this kind of posting. If you really want to tangle, we can get into it, but if you continue deliberately misrepresenting my words and refuse to read the context of my post, I will end this debate because I simply refuse to participate in ridiculous bantering and misinterpretation. I don't really have any issue with anything in your original post other than the strawman argument. Those posts you cite in the Dunn argument, the ones where people are saying that walks are better than hits -- please, find them and cite them.

 

There was some debate about this in the Dunn thread(s), but I can't remember if anyone said what he claims, or whether that a walk can be equal to or better than a hit.

 

In regards to the components of OBP, the reason to prefer a higher walk rate is consistency. Walk rate is one of the more predictable stats. The higher that is, the more likely a player has to have a consistently high OBP. Also, like you say, a high average that props up an OBP can be attributed to an abnormally high BABIP, making it less likely for a player to repeat that production.

 

EDIT: Obviously there are players that defy the above statement by hitting .300 or better with a decent walk rate for a good portion of their careers, Pierre and Nomar prior to this year are good examples. Both are on the wrong side of 30 though, and with that means a drop in bat speed, and without the walk rate, a drop in production.

Edited August 10, 2005 by Transmogrified Tiger

[erik316wttn]

Here's a real simple chart to keep in mind that I think is reflective of the extreme majority of the board:

 

 

You are welcome.

 

Hmm. Nice try. And this was in reference to you how?

 

Thank you for playing.

 

Haha. BANNED!!

[brinoch]

Here's a real simple chart to keep in mind that I think is reflective of the extreme majority of the board:

 

 

You are welcome.

 

Hmm. Nice try. And this was in reference to you how?

 

Thank you for playing.

 

Haha. BANNED!!

 

Now, now. He hasn't been banned for arguing with me.

[OldHappyCubFan]

Listen, we can't play Pie yet. Let the kid develop for a year or two. I say we bring in Giles, and a leadoff hitter. Let Murton platoon with LF and RF.

 

The bottem line, is people don't give Pierre enough credit. I wish this guy was in our division so people would see how talented he is.

 

Maybe he doesen't have a stat line that looks like a Hall of Famer. But he's an All-Star caliber player. He gets the job done as a leadoff hitter.

 

I think some of you guys are nitpicking way too much, and entrusting your beliefs on Murton and Pie, who really haven't proven anything, and are minor leaguers to this point. Pierre has done it, and hes won a World Series.

 

We're gonna have to trade prospects, if you want a good looking outfield. That might include Pie/Murton.

[JC]

 

The bottem line, is people don't give Pierre enough credit.

 

Sorry, but that isn't a bottom line. A bottom line connotes a fact. You are stating your opinion. Conversely, I think people give Pierre too much credit. But, I don't think that is a fact.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Listen, we can't play Pie yet. Let the kid develop for a year or two. I say we bring in Giles, and a leadoff hitter. Let Murton platoon with LF and RF.

 

The bottem line, is people don't give Pierre enough credit. I wish this guy was in our division so people would see how talented he is.

 

Maybe he doesen't have a stat line that looks like a Hall of Famer. But he's an All-Star caliber player. He gets the job done as a leadoff hitter.

 

I think some of you guys are nitpicking way too much, and entrusting your beliefs on Murton and Pie, who really haven't proven anything, and are minor leaguers to this point. Pierre has done it, and hes won a World Series.

 

We're gonna have to trade prospects, if you want a good looking outfield. That might include Pie/Murton.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I've said on more than one occasion that Pie should spend all of 2006 in AAA unless he has a large turnaround in plate discipline. I've also said that Murton might not necessarily be the answer to our troubles either. However, I can tell you that I'm not selling Pierre short. Have you seen the numbers he's put up this year? They're awful. We sent Patterson to AAA for his struggles, and they have identical OPS's. Patterson is already under our control, is a superior defender, and has produced better or equal to Pierre for the last 2 years at a much younger age. I'm certainly not saying that Patterson should be penciled into a championship caliber lineup, and that says something about Pierre. It says that he's not any better than what we have.

[chopsx9]

You know, you're cruising for a bruising. Seriously. I have no patience for this kind of posting. If you really want to tangle, we can get into it, but if you continue deliberately misrepresenting my words and refuse to read the context of my post, I will end this debate because I simply refuse to participate in ridiculous bantering and misinterpretation. I don't really have any issue with anything in your original post other than the strawman argument. Those posts you cite in the Dunn argument, the ones where people are saying that walks are better than hits -- please, find them and cite them.

 

There was some debate about this in the Dunn thread(s), but I can't remember if anyone said what he claims, or whether that a walk can be equal to or better than a hit.

 

In regards to the components of OBP, the reason to prefer a higher walk rate is consistency. Walk rate is one of the more predictable stats. The higher that is, the more likely a player has to have a consistently high OBP. Also, like you say, a high average that props up an OBP can be attributed to an abnormally high BABIP, making it less likely for a player to repeat that production.

 

EDIT: Obviously there are players that defy the above statement by hitting .300 or better with a decent walk rate for a good portion of their careers, Pierre and Nomar prior to this year are good examples. Both are on the wrong side of 30 though, and with that means a drop in bat speed, and without the walk rate, a drop in production.

 

Again the point was if players have the same OBP, the player with higher average is preferable. Your comments in your EDIT are examples of that and that was the point. There was no discussion about possible future production, potential trade targets etc.

Edited August 10, 2005 by chopsx8

[OldHappyCubFan]

Pierre's rapsheet, his experience, and hes ability to cause havoc on the bases, is what we need.

 

We don't need a slugging leadoff hitter. I just want the guy on base. Look at Scott Pods.

 

The guy isn't hitting a whole lot of homers, or doubles. But he consistently steals second base. Many times third base, without any competition from the catcher.

 

Thats what this team needs. Big deal if hes having a down year. I highly doubt he'll be this way next year. Hes below his career averages. Corey is NOT a leadoff hitter.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Pierre's rapsheet, his experience, and hes ability to cause havoc on the bases, is what we need.

 

We don't need a slugging leadoff hitter. I just want the guy on base. Look at Scott Pods.

 

The guy isn't hitting a whole lot of homers, or doubles. But he consistently steals second base. Many times third base, without any competition from the catcher.

 

Thats what this team needs. Big deal if hes having a down year. I highly doubt he'll be this way next year. Hes below his career averages. Corey is NOT a leadoff hitter.

 

You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. Last year, Patterson was a better player than Pierre. That's going by Runs Created, which takes into account stolen bases. This year, both have been equally horrible, except Pierre has 160 more plate appearances of awfulness. You can justify him all you want with vague terms, but the fact remains that Patterson is every bit as good as Pierre, if not better. AND, Patterson is not a very good player right now.

[CubinNY]

Pierre's rapsheet, his experience, and hes ability to cause havoc on the bases, is what we need.

 

We don't need a slugging leadoff hitter. I just want the guy on base. Look at Scott Pods.

 

The guy isn't hitting a whole lot of homers, or doubles. But he consistently steals second base. Many times third base, without any competition from the catcher.

 

Thats what this team needs. Big deal if hes having a down year. I highly doubt he'll be this way next year. Hes below his career averages. Corey is NOT a leadoff hitter.

 

Because we seem to be discussing faulty logic in this thread here is another one.

 

The false choice

 

someone who does not like Pierre wants a slugging lead off batter.

 

nut hunh. no sir.

 

There are reasons to not like Pierre that have nothing to do with a slugging. Those reasons have been enumerated countless times so I won't go into it.

 

So, Mr/Mrs OHCF you will have to find another reason why you think people don't want Pierre.

[Tim]

The generic term of "hit" is always equal to or better than a walk. Included in that "hit" are extra base hits, hits with runners on base that advance them further than a walk does, etc.

 

What is not so clear (and is dependent upon the player under discussion) is whether a walk is better than "putting the ball into play". For a player like Pierre, taking a walk is far better than him slapping at the ball and putting it into play due to the fact that most of those balls in play turn into outs (and some of them turn into two outs). For Pujols, a walk is less valuable than when he puts the ball into play because of his ability to hit for extra bases, his sustainably high BABIP, etc. Ironically, this ability when he puts the ball into play is what makes him feared and drives up the number of walks he receives.

[Hossman]

I think people who are criticizing Juan Pierre's OPS and comparing it to that of Corey Patterson are completely missing the point. Pierre would fill a needed role for this team - that of a leadoff hitter, something Corey has obviously struggled with. Of course Corey's OPS will be as good, if not better, than Juan Pierre. But we don't need another bat in the #6 hole, we need a leadoff hitter to get on base.

 

Let me use an extreme example here...Brett Butler, one of the game's greatest leadoff hitters, had a career OPS of .752. Preston Wilson's career OPS is .812, does that mean Wilson is a better player than Brett Butler was? Absolutely not. If you can get on base and run as a leadoff hitter, you are filling a vital role for your team.

[Tim]

Also, I have no interest in Pierre. He's extremely overrated by many (probably underrated by others, including me). We'd have to give up talent to get him and he'd be no better than going with what we have in CF.

[Tim]

I think people who are criticizing Juan Pierre's OPS and comparing it to that of Corey Patterson are completely missing the point. Pierre would fill a needed role for this team - that of a leadoff hitter, something Corey has obviously struggled with. Of course Corey's OPS will be as good, if not better, than Juan Pierre. But we don't need another bat in the #6 hole, we need a leadoff hitter to get on base.

 

Let me use an extreme example here...Brett Butler, one of the game's greatest leadoff hitters, had a career OPS of .752. Preston Wilson's career OPS is .812, does that mean Wilson is a better player than Brett Butler was? Absolutely not. If you can get on base and run as a leadoff hitter, you are filling a vital role for your team.

Butler stole bases at a high enough success rate to be valuable to his team. He also performed in a different run environment than exists today where that stolen base meant a lot more.

 

Pierre does not.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think people who are criticizing Juan Pierre's OPS and comparing it to that of Corey Patterson are completely missing the point. Pierre would fill a needed role for this team - that of a leadoff hitter, something Corey has obviously struggled with. Of course Corey's OPS will be as good, if not better, than Juan Pierre. But we don't need another bat in the #6 hole, we need a leadoff hitter to get on base.

 

Let me use an extreme example here...Brett Butler, one of the game's greatest leadoff hitters, had a career OPS of .752. Preston Wilson's career OPS is .812, does that mean Wilson is a better player than Brett Butler was? Absolutely not. If you can get on base and run as a leadoff hitter, you are filling a vital role for your team.

 

How is Pierre filling a role on this team if he can't produce any better than Patterson? His OBP this year is an anemic .313. His SLG is an even worse .330. Even when he was hitting, he wasn't a great player. I don't know how easier to say it than I already have. Patterson was better offensive player than Pierre last year. He created more runs for his team. Spot in the order is irrelevant. If you stuck Patterson in the leadoff hole for all of last season, you would have scored more runs than if Pierre was in the leadoff spot.

 

Lawton and Walker are both better leadoff candidates than Juan Pierre. Walker will come cheap next season, and we have the advantage of having Lawton on the team right now when it comes to signing him. There's no need for Pierre. He's not a very good offensive player. His skillset isn't as productive as convential wisdom would lead us to believe.

[Hossman]

Don't want people to think I'm trying to push Corey out the door, I still like him and think he can turn into a good middle of the order hitter - just liked the idea of getting Pierre to lead off a little better.

 

So is Lawton who people want next year at leadoff? Even with Lawton, the middle of our lineup needs a big bat and Giles could fill that role, but then where would that leave Pie and Murton???

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Don't want people to think I'm trying to push Corey out the door, I still like him and think he can turn into a good middle of the order hitter - just liked the idea of getting Pierre to lead off a little better.

 

So is Lawton who people want next year at leadoff? Even with Lawton, the middle of our lineup needs a big bat and Giles could fill that role, but then where would that leave Pie and Murton???

 

Pie in AAA hopefully, and Murton as the 4th OF or dealt.

[XZero771679666304]

Don't want people to think I'm trying to push Corey out the door, I still like him and think he can turn into a good middle of the order hitter - just liked the idea of getting Pierre to lead off a little better.

 

So is Lawton who people want next year at leadoff? Even with Lawton, the middle of our lineup needs a big bat and Giles could fill that role, but then where would that leave Pie and Murton???

 

Pie in AAA hopefully, and Murton as the 4th OF or dealt.

 

For better or worse, I think Pie is in the bigs next season.

[Tim]

I'm ambivalent to Lawton for 2006.

 

What it comes down to is that I'd like to pack the order with the best possible eight hitters instead of worrying about stereotypical roles.

[abuck1220]

pierre has gone the orlando cabrera route of going from slightly underrated to ridiculously, ridiculously overrated.

 

cabrera cashed in that way, pierre probably will too. i just hope it isn't w/ the cubs.