Maybe Hendry just doesn't get it.

[goonys evil twin]

Lots of people looked at this ballclub at predicted .500. Some predicted sub .500. Most predicted nowhere near the playoffs. I was not confident in the least, but I was hoping for a lot of breaks coming there way, but even still I thought 89 wins would have been a stretch.

 

Just for the sake of persepctive.... the 44 players who entered Serena's Predictions Contest for the season guessed, on the average, that the CUBS would win 91.2 games, with a high guess of 99 and a low of 79.

 

That's a good 10-12 games worth of Blue, Kool-Aid, eh?

 

Predictions and hope are a dangerous combo. There's a reason why Vegas overvalues the Cubs every year, people buy for some reason.

 

 

Cubswin. I really don't know what you want. I am incredibly disappointed in the work that Hendry has done as GM. It started with the deal he reportedly put together as asst. GM when he went hard after Alf, and it got much worse when he signed Baker. I was a huge Hendry fan when he was the minor league guy. I bought "we'll concentrate on pitching and trade for hitters" strategy, and I even had faith in the best hitters from that time (none of which have made it big in the bigs). I really wanted him to become GM, thinking that, unlike Lynch, he'd value the kids and not overvalue mediocre proven veterans. Since then I have not been happy with his work.

 

You seem happy. You apparantly judge his work differently than I. In your mind, you've offered up a lot of reasons why he's done well. In my mind, you've offered nothing but excuses that any team could use when they fail.

 

The bottom line is back in the late 90s, I expected great things out of the 2003-2007 Cubs, and so far I've been extremely disappointed. Hendry has been the primary architect behind all that has gone on between now and then, and because of that he take a huge portion of the blame. I think he's capable of being good enough to fix the problem, I just don't have any reason to have faith in him doing so.

 

The rest of this conversation is pointless. I'm not trying to convince you he sucks, or is the devil. I'm not trying to advocate his immediate removal from the front office. I'm just pissed that this team sucks so bad, and I'm pissed because it didn't have to, especially given the amount of money headed toward payroll.

 

I can't relate with somebody saying this season is just a series of bad breaks and unforeseen setbacks, not when so many of the troubles were predicted long ago, as long ago as the day Hendry hired notorious pitcher abuser and veteran fetisher Dusty Baker. To me, there's not much left to say on the matter.

[goonys evil twin]

Chill, goony. Its really not as "awful" as you think it is. They have produced major leaguers over the last decade. Check the stats.

 

Do the words "of late" mean anything to you? This season, the Cubs had breakthrough years for several position players. Murton, Pie, Moore among others. Ryan Harvey showed what he could do with a prolonged streak in the 2nd half of this year where he put up crazy numbers. He is just 20 years old. Eric Patterson put up great numbers in A-ball and is now at AA in his 1st pro season. The year before it was Dopirak and Cedeno who had breakout seasons.

 

Harvey has been a disappointment, for somebody picked so high and paid so much, more should be expected. Dopirak has taken a huge step back. Murton was not in any way shape or form developed in this system. He was traded for last year. Pie still has the same problems, and to some extent more extreme problems, that Corey had. His K/BB is scary bad. Production in lower levels does not mean the system has produced anybody. They still have to show it up here. Replace the names you listed with guys like Montanez, Corey Patterson, Hee Seop Choi, David Kelton, Ryan Gripp, Jason Dubois and others from a few years ago and you could say the same thing. This organization has been very bad at developing hitters. There's no way around that. Hopefully in a few years that will have changed, yet, to-date, there is no evidence they have. They still haven't produced a single good hitter.

[cubbieinexile]

So Corey wasn't a gamble this year? We could expect solid above average performance from him this year? I'm not saying we could have expected him to play as bad as he did but there is nothing in his past performance to suggest that we should have been confident in his abilities. Could we have expected DLee to be as good as he was? No but we could have expected to play rather well this season based on seasons past. Could we say the same for Corey, Burnitz, and Hollandsworth?

 

You keep asking for alternatives but it is impossible to bring up alternatives. We are outsiders all we would be doing is second guessing and it would be rather pointless. could I say that the Cubs should have kept Moises, signed Beltran and moved Corey to right with Hairston as the back up? Would that have been a better option? Yes I could say all that but does that mean it was a possibility? I have no idea if it was. Can I say that the Cubs should have kept Gutierrez thus not necessitating the Gonzalez trade thus causing no fumbled error in the NLCS and thus not requiring the cubs to dump AGon and find someone else, and perhaps forcing the Cubs to make moves that would add depth to their very very thin SS ranks? Yes I could but it would all be second guessing and rather pointless.

 

The only point that matters for us outsiders was that Hendry had a poor plan and it was executed poorly. It may very well have been the best possible plan in the off season and heading into this season but the fact that it was the best possible plan speaks rather poorly on Hendrys performance as GM.

 

The reason teams like the Braves and A's continue to role even when they lose players to injuries, free agency or trades and having their primary plans not work is because their back up plans work, and when their back up plans don't work, their back up back up plans work.

[JC]

Lots of people looked at this ballclub at predicted .500. Some predicted sub .500. Most predicted nowhere near the playoffs. I was not confident in the least, but I was hoping for a lot of breaks coming there way, but even still I thought 89 wins would have been a stretch.

 

Just for the sake of persepctive.... the 44 players who entered Serena's Predictions Contest for the season guessed, on the average, that the CUBS would win 91.2 games, with a high guess of 99 and a low of 79.

 

That's a good 10-12 games worth of Blue, Kool-Aid, eh?

 

For purposes of that game, I can tell you that my guesses were based on best case scenerios and the assumption that Nomar would remain healthy, along with the rotation.

 

I think you have to account for a little positive bias. Fans don't want to think the worst about their team right before the season starts.

[biittner77]

For me, the offseason comes down to 3 things

 

1. The injury to Wood had the biggest effect on the team. Wood going down kept Dempster in the rotation longer. It also weakened our overall depth by pushing everyone up a spot. The problem is that no one could replace Wood's potential contribution to the team.

 

2. The Cubs could have withstood Nomar's injury if they had a more productive hitter in LF or if Patterson hadn't forgotten how to hit. Hendry had a back up plan in case Nomar got hurt (Perez) but he neglected to account for the loss of production.

 

3. With the entire OF providing modest production - and that's being generous- Hendry should have pulled the trigger on a deal even if he had to overpay. Perhaps he tried but couldn't due to the depleted depth caused by injuries.

[cubbieinexile]

I remember in 2002 on the old message boards a Reds fan coming on bashing the cubs during the preseason saying how the Reds were going to be better then the Cubs that year. I and many others attacked his view and though it was completely silly. We all thought that the team that won 88 games in 2001 would be even better then the year before. We were wrong and looking back I think most of realized we should have seen it before hand but let our fan bias and hoeps get in the way. It happens all the time. We look at our Cubs and imagine best case scenario, we look at our opponents and we imagine everything going wrong.

 

 

As for the positional players I agree with Goony. Three or 4 years ago I was lamenting on the lack of quality positional players in our minor league system. Many many people jumped on those statements and thought they were ludicrous. They started naming virtually all the players Goony just mentioned and how they were just around the corner and were the Cubs future. Jump ahead to the end of 2005 and they are all gone and looking to be all bust or at the most bench fodder. Now though if you say the same thing those same people will again say it is a ludicrous statement and they will name a whole bunch new players that are just around the corner and our future.

 

 

And as for Hill and Choi getting us ARam and DLee, that was a fluke the Pirates were dumping salaries on players they knew they would not keep same with Florida. Expecting the Cubs or relying on them to be able to do this on constant basis is not going to get them anywhere. It is not a common occurence we cannot simply flip a prospect every year for some triple crown hitter or pitcher.

[cubbieinexile]

For me, the offseason comes down to 3 things

 

1. The injury to Wood had the biggest effect on the team. Wood going down kept Dempster in the rotation longer. It also weakened our overall depth by pushing everyone up a spot. The problem is that no one could replace Wood's potential contribution to the team.

 

2. The Cubs could have withstood Nomar's injury if they had a more productive hitter in LF or if Patterson hadn't forgotten how to hit. Hendry had a back up plan in case Nomar got hurt (Perez) but he neglected to account for the loss of production.

 

3. With the entire OF providing modest production - and that's being generous- Hendry should have pulled the trigger on a deal even if he had to overpay. Perhaps he tried but couldn't due to the depleted depth caused by injuries.

 

your number 2 and 3 is basically what I am saying in a nutshell. Well done.

[CubsWin]

Murton was not in any way shape or form developed in this system.

I figured you would say that.

 

Murton has spent a little over a year in the Cubs system. In that time, he has put numbers way beyond anything he ever did in the Boston organization. But, you're right. There is no way, shape or form that Matt Murton learned anything in the last 12 months. You are absolutely right that the Cubs instructors have nothing to do with his growth as a player. It is absolute coincidence that the numbers he has put up with the DJaxx and Cubs this season were much better than any of the stats he put up in 2 1/2 years with Boston. Thats just luck or baseball variance, right goony?

 

Here is something for which Jim Hendry is 100% responsible: Murton being on the Cubs roster.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Murton was not in any way shape or form developed in this system.

I figured you would say that.

 

Murton has spent a little over a year in the Cubs system. In that time, he has put numbers way beyond anything he ever did in the Boston organization. But, you're right. There is no way, shape or form that Matt Murton learned anything in the last 12 months. You are absolutely right that the Cubs instructors have nothing to do with his growth as a player. It is absolute coincidence that the numbers he has put up with the DJaxx and Cubs this season were much better than any of the stats he put up in 2 1/2 years with Boston. Thats just luck or baseball variance, right goony?

 

Murton has a ridiculously high BABIP, which accounts for much of the difference between this year and last year's performance.

[CubsWin]

Murton was not in any way shape or form developed in this system.

I figured you would say that.

 

Murton has spent a little over a year in the Cubs system. In that time, he has put numbers way beyond anything he ever did in the Boston organization. But, you're right. There is no way, shape or form that Matt Murton learned anything in the last 12 months. You are absolutely right that the Cubs instructors have nothing to do with his growth as a player. It is absolute coincidence that the numbers he has put up with the DJaxx and Cubs this season were much better than any of the stats he put up in 2 1/2 years with Boston. Thats just luck or baseball variance, right goony?

 

Murton has a ridiculously high BABIP, which accounts for much of the difference between this year and last year's performance.

Well he has had it consistently all year long then.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Murton was not in any way shape or form developed in this system.

I figured you would say that.

 

Murton has spent a little over a year in the Cubs system. In that time, he has put numbers way beyond anything he ever did in the Boston organization. But, you're right. There is no way, shape or form that Matt Murton learned anything in the last 12 months. You are absolutely right that the Cubs instructors have nothing to do with his growth as a player. It is absolute coincidence that the numbers he has put up with the DJaxx and Cubs this season were much better than any of the stats he put up in 2 1/2 years with Boston. Thats just luck or baseball variance, right goony?

 

Murton has a ridiculously high BABIP, which accounts for much of the difference between this year and last year's performance.

Well he has had it consistently all year long then.

 

Yes, but it's still only a couple hundred plate appearances. I'm not saying the Cubs didn't do anything to help Murton, but if you want the main reason his numbers are so much higher, and why they aren't likely to stay that way, that's your answer.

[imb]

Unless Murton has somehow mastered the art of the crap single, I can't see him hitting over .300 next year.

[CubsWin]

So Corey wasn't a gamble this year? We could expect solid above average performance from him this year? I'm not saying we could have expected him to play as bad as he did but there is nothing in his past performance to suggest that we should have been confident in his abilities. Could we have expected DLee to be as good as he was? No but we could have expected to play rather well this season based on seasons past. Could we say the same for Corey, Burnitz, and Hollandsworth?

 

You keep asking for alternatives but it is impossible to bring up alternatives. We are outsiders all we would be doing is second guessing and it would be rather pointless. could I say that the Cubs should have kept Moises, signed Beltran and moved Corey to right with Hairston as the back up? Would that have been a better option? Yes I could say all that but does that mean it was a possibility? I have no idea if it was. Can I say that the Cubs should have kept Gutierrez thus not necessitating the Gonzalez trade thus causing no fumbled error in the NLCS and thus not requiring the cubs to dump AGon and find someone else, and perhaps forcing the Cubs to make moves that would add depth to their very very thin SS ranks? Yes I could but it would all be second guessing and rather pointless.

 

The only point that matters for us outsiders was that Hendry had a poor plan and it was executed poorly. It may very well have been the best possible plan in the off season and heading into this season but the fact that it was the best possible plan speaks rather poorly on Hendrys performance as GM.

 

The reason teams like the Braves and A's continue to role even when they lose players to injuries, free agency or trades and having their primary plans not work is because their back up plans work, and when their back up plans don't work, their back up back up plans work.

Yes, I agree that no one could have seen Corey's poor performance coming.

 

Yes, I agree that looking back now and saying that Hendry should have made other moves would be 20/20 hindsight and second-guessing and that we simply don't know what other possibilities Hendry had to choose from.

 

No, I don't agree that Hendry's plan was a poor one. I think his plan was overrun by poor performances and injuries, some which he could anticipate and some which he could not.

 

Yes, I agree that the A's and Braves have shown the ability to have sustained success. But is that because their GMs had infallible back-up plans, who knows? Whether a GMs back-up plan works or not is largely out of their hands. Every trade, signing, draft choice, promotion, etc., is a gamble. Some years those gambles pay off. Some years they don't.

 

Is Hendry as good a GM as Billy Beane or John Schuerholz? I don't think so. Is he responsible for the Cubs record every year? No. Is he partially responsible? Of course. Is he horrible at putting a team together? I don't see the evidence supporting that statement.

 

If the Cubs didn't have as many injuries to key players as they did and didn't compound those injuries with poor performances from key players who actually stayed healthy, the Cubs record would likely be quite different this season. I have still seen no evidence that Hendry failed to provide the best possible back-up plans for the injury risks of Nomar and Wood this season.

 

As far as LF is concerned, I disagreed with Baker when he chose to start Hollandsworth and that pushed back the amount of time in which Hendry had to evaluate Dubois and make a trade to get a new and better LFer. I agree that it would have been better to have that trade happen sooner in the year, but I have no way of knowing whether or not that was even possible without giving up someone like Pie.

 

Are there things that he could have done better? Of course. Is he the reason why so many things went wrong all in the same year? I don't see how you could support the position that any GM has that much control.

[cubbieinexile]

So Hendry had a plan and it was overrun by poor performances and what did he do about it? Nothing. And who gave those poor performances? All except for Corey could have been easily expected. If Hendry had a plan it was an extremely risky one and when it didn't work he did nothing to alleviate the problem.

[AFCubsFan]

I appreciate that Hendry has done his best to build a winning team. He has actually pursued some "name" players for us. However, I don't think he should get another injury pass.

 

The Cubs came into the season relying heavily on Nomar to offset a loss in OF production. They were also relying on Wood and Prior to stay healthy. How realistic is this? When is the last time Wood, Prior, or Nomar had a healthy season? It's a fantasy world.

 

The only question I have is who should be fired: Hendry, Baker, or both? Is the talent>than the team's record? If so, Dusty should be gone. Is the payroll>than the talent? If so, Hendry should be gone. In regards to the payroll question, a lot of that money was in contracts that Hendry didn't make so I don't think he deserves all the blame.

 

Now we're gearing up for the offseason. What positions to the Cubs need to fill? Is TWalks contract up? If so, the team needs 3 OF's (unless CPatt deserves another chance), a starting SS, and a starting 2B. That's just in the starting lineup.

 

Some are saying the team should have an extra $30 mil to spend in the offseason. That's great if they spend it wisely...but I get the feeling they'll overpay for mediocrity and continue to neglect some of the team needs. They will also not know which rookies deserve shots at bigger roles because those rooks won't see enough playing time...even with the team out of it this month.

 

In my opinion, Dusty should be fired. They could turn it into a promotional day at the ballpark. He stands in the way of success. The team has develped a poor attitude and he contributes to the problem. He's an excuse maker and the team follows his lead. We need to know which rookie players deserve a shot before we enter the offseason, that won't happen with Baker at the helm. The organization should also evaluate Henry's plan for this offseason. If it doesn't look good, fire him now. It's better to do it now instead of waiting until he commits the Sosa savings to new bad contracts.

[CubsWin]

So Hendry had a plan and it was overrun by poor performances and what did he do about it? Nothing.

Nothing? He didn't make any trades? Trading Hawkins, Dubois and Gerut is doing nothing? He didn't bring up any of the Cubs minor leaguers that were performing well? Bringing up Hill, Cedeno, Murton and others was doing nothing?

 

I have never argued that Hendry is perfect, the best GM in baseball or totally blameless. I simply respond to posts that I think go too far in one extreme or the other and present evidence to show that comments like "Hendry did nothing" don't hold up under scrutiny.

 

And who gave those poor performances? All except for Corey could have been easily expected. If Hendry had a plan it was an extremely risky one and when it didn't work he did nothing to alleviate the problem.

1. So Dubois' level of play could have been predicted? A guy who showed a proven ability to take a walk and get on base as well as hit HRs at almost every level of competition should have been expected to walk a grand total of 7 times in 142 at bats for an OBP of .289?

 

2. Hendry should have expected Walker to get injured and miss 40 games and expected Prior, he of the perfect mechanics and effortless delivery, to miss as many games as he did? And even if he did expect Prior to get injured, what was he to do about it? Go out and acquire someone else's ace at the beginning of the season when everyone is still in it? Or was he supposed to assume the worst and acquire another team's ace during the off-season?

 

3. He should have known that Hairston, who had OBPs of .353 and .378 the previous 2 seasons and is in his prime, would revert to an OBP of .339 and completely fail in his time in the lead-off role with a OBP of .302 in the lead-off spot?

 

4. He should have expected Hollandsworth to have an OPS 85 points lower than his career average?

 

5. He should have expected Remlinger to have a 4.91 ERA when the two previous seasons he had ERAs of 3.44 and 3.65?

 

6. He should have expected Lawton to tank upon arrival? Or Wellemeyer to not progress at all? Or Leicester to regress and disappear?

 

When you add those performances and injuries to the other ones that were planned for but still happened, even the best plans will be overrun.

 

Your statement of "all except for Corey could have been easily expected" doesn't hold up under scrutiny and isn't supported by the facts.

[CubsWin]

The Cubs came into the season relying heavily on Nomar to offset a loss in OF production. They were also relying on Wood and Prior to stay healthy. How realistic is this? When is the last time Wood, Prior, or Nomar had a healthy season? It's a fantasy world.

A fantasy world?

 

Okay, so lets go back to last off season. The 2004 season has just ended and we ask ourselves the same question, "When was the last time Wood, Prior or Nomar had a healthy season? The answer? The year before.

 

In 2003, Wood pitched 211 innings and the year before that he pitched 213. In 2003, Prior's arm was completely healthy. He only missed time for the freak injury when he ran into Marcus Giles in the basepath. His injury wasn't from wear and tear. It wasn't until '04 that Prior showed any sort of arm problems, so why would Hendry have reason to think that it would be a reoccuring thing? Nomar played in 156 games and had 658 at bats in 2003. In fact, in '02 he also played in 156 games. And here is the kicker, before the '04 season, Nomar had only registered one season in which he had missed over 27 games.

 

So given the overwhelming evidence that Prior is not an ongoing injury concern, Wood is, but the Cubs have some arms that can step in for him in case he does incur another injury, and that Nomar isn't a huge risk to miss more than 25-30 games, why do you accuse Hendry of living in a "fantasy world"?

 

The only question I have is who should be fired: Hendry, Baker, or both? Is the talent>than the team's record? If so, Dusty should be gone. Is the payroll>than the talent? If so, Hendry should be gone. In regards to the payroll question, a lot of that money was in contracts that Hendry didn't make so I don't think he deserves all the blame.

It is my opinion that Baker should go. Hendry clearly has shown the ability to acquire players that improve the team. It hasn't worked out the last 2 seasons, but I think he deserves more chances than that.

 

Now we're gearing up for the offseason. What positions to the Cubs need to fill? Is TWalks contract up? If so, the team needs 3 OF's (unless CPatt deserves another chance), a starting SS, and a starting 2B. That's just in the starting lineup.

Walker's contract isn't up. The Cubs have a team option on him for next season at 2.5 million. Whether they use it, remains to be seen. The CPatt question is a big one. He needs to show the Cubs something in the last month and probably play some winter ball and do well in order for the Cubs to not sign someone else to play CF this off season. Corey could do great in spring training and win a job on the big club even if a CFer is signed or acquired via trade.

[mhuber92211]

I am beginning to think that Hendry gave up on the season when he dealt Hawkins. He got Lawton as a player that he was more interested (at the time) in keeping for 2006 then Gerut. Lawton didn't do well and Hendry was finally in a position where he could publicly admit that the season was done.

 

Hendry knew that the season was over after trading Hawkins and calling up Muronn & Greenberg. Hendry knew that the coming season is a mkae or break time and wanted to use the remainder to help make decisions for it. He is a good GM with solid scouting skills. He can be creative with trades and is one to gamble at times. But he is smart on these gambles and can justify any and all of the acqusitions that he has made to the point where you can understand why he made them (except maybe Sisco but there is a point to be made for him as well).

 

I like Hendry and I like his drive, motivation, attitude and track record. He is still the best GM we have had in my lifetime and will likely be the GM that takes this team to a more prominent position. For those that have concerns about him, who is a better candidate for the job? Questioning the leaders and the problems are a good thing, but having a solution to them when you address your concerns is important as well.

[cubbieinexile]

I had the Cubs with a best case scenario scoring 825 runs or so and that is again best case scenario. I had them allowing around 680 to 700 runs as best case scenario. That puts them at around 93 to 95 wins as best possible.

 

To me that is their ceiling and the more likely scenario is that they fall below that ceiling. How much would depends on the gambles they take. Nomar was a gamble he has a track record of being injured and having a slow recovery. He had a stretch of 4 or 5 years where he was always injured. Even in 2002 and 2003 he was always playing with a variety of ailments. Nomar plays the whole season he is worth about 110 to 120 runs. If Neifi plays most of the season he is worth around 75 runs. Likely event is that with Nomar as the starter you would get around 90 runs out of the SS. Meaning right there you the most likely event is that you don't score 825 runs but 795 or so runs. Then throw in the fact that you have a third basemen and a second basemen who do get niggling injuries and you have a mediocre bench and that is another 20 or so runs that you lose. Then you look at the outfield and you look at LF and you see a 4th OF'er starting with the back up being a untested rookie and that is another 20 or so runs you lose.

 

So to me going into the seaon the best case scenario is 825 runs, the most likely amount would probably be 750 runs.

 

For the pitching side I think you have to fully expect Kerry Wood missing time, I think you have to expect the bullpen to struggle at least a little, and Greg Maddux to age at least a little. I don't think you can expect Mark Prior to miss time, there would definitely be a risk but I don't think you could expect him to miss more then 3 or 4 starts at the most. I think 680 to 700 was best case but I think 720 or would probably be the most likely outcome. So best outcome is 93 to 95 wins the more likely outcome is 84 wins.

 

So Hendry put together a team that if everything worked out had a chance at the Wild Card but the more likely event would be that it would be a middling team. Now if he had a 60 million dollar payroll and a bunch of youngsters I would say that he did a great job. But that wasn't the case. He spent around 100 million dollars and had a lot of established players. With that kind of money you don't build a team that has a fighting chance at the Wild Card. You build a division winner.

 

Look at that bench, that is a horrible bench, outside of Hairston all of them should be expected to be a black hole. So Hendry assembled a team that had no margin for error. What would have been the plan if Aramis Ramirez pulls a muscle and is out for a month? Do a Lenny Harris again? What would be the game plan if Nomar's wrist acts up? Have Neifi start? I'm not saying that the Cubs should have had a all-star back up at every position but their options for each position if the starter went down was a black hole. Hairston was the only saving grace on that bench. If Todd goes down he would have been a serviceable replacement, if Corey goes down he would have been ok, and in left he would be mediocre but he wouldn't have been a blackhole. A team that has Blanco, Macias, Neifi, and an untested rookie as their bench is a team that is praying to god that their starters stay healthy. A team with Nomar, ARam, Todd, and a 36 year old right fielder is not going to get that prayer answered often.

[CubsWin]

I had the Cubs with a best case scenario scoring 825 runs or so and that is again best case scenario. I had them allowing around 680 to 700 runs as best case scenario. That puts them at around 93 to 95 wins as best possible.

 

To me that is their ceiling and the more likely scenario is that they fall below that ceiling. How much would depends on the gambles they take. Nomar was a gamble he has a track record of being injured and having a slow recovery. He had a stretch of 4 or 5 years where he was always injured. Even in 2002 and 2003 he was always playing with a variety of ailments. Nomar plays the whole season he is worth about 110 to 120 runs. If Neifi plays most of the season he is worth around 75 runs. Likely event is that with Nomar as the starter you would get around 90 runs out of the SS. Meaning right there you the most likely event is that you don't score 825 runs but 795 or so runs. Then throw in the fact that you have a third basemen and a second basemen who do get niggling injuries and you have a mediocre bench and that is another 20 or so runs that you lose. Then you look at the outfield and you look at LF and you see a 4th OF'er starting with the back up being a untested rookie and that is another 20 or so runs you lose.

 

So to me going into the seaon the best case scenario is 825 runs, the most likely amount would probably be 750 runs.

 

For the pitching side I think you have to fully expect Kerry Wood missing time, I think you have to expect the bullpen to struggle at least a little, and Greg Maddux to age at least a little. I don't think you can expect Mark Prior to miss time, there would definitely be a risk but I don't think you could expect him to miss more then 3 or 4 starts at the most. I think 680 to 700 was best case but I think 720 or would probably be the most likely outcome. So best outcome is 93 to 95 wins the more likely outcome is 84 wins.

 

So Hendry put together a team that if everything worked out had a chance at the Wild Card but the more likely event would be that it would be a middling team. Now if he had a 60 million dollar payroll and a bunch of youngsters I would say that he did a great job. But that wasn't the case. He spent around 100 million dollars and had a lot of established players. With that kind of money you don't build a team that has a fighting chance at the Wild Card. You build a division winner.

 

Look at that bench, that is a horrible bench, outside of Hairston all of them should be expected to be a black hole. So Hendry assembled a team that had no margin for error. What would have been the plan if Aramis Ramirez pulls a muscle and is out for a month? Do a Lenny Harris again? What would be the game plan if Nomar's wrist acts up? Have Neifi start? I'm not saying that the Cubs should have had a all-star back up at every position but their options for each position if the starter went down was a black hole. Hairston was the only saving grace on that bench. If Todd goes down he would have been a serviceable replacement, if Corey goes down he would have been ok, and in left he would be mediocre but he wouldn't have been a blackhole. A team that has Blanco, Macias, Neifi, and an untested rookie as their bench is a team that is praying to god that their starters stay healthy. A team with Nomar, ARam, Todd, and a 36 year old right fielder is not going to get that prayer answered often.

So faced with the fact that several people underperformed this season and not just Corey, and faced with the fact that not every player that got injured is a proven injury risk, you have now given us your opinion about how the Cubs should have done this season and are treating your opinion like it is fact.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but I have to ask what evidence can you show that your projections are more accurate than anyone else's? Why should your projections be treated as the truth in this case?

[cubbieinexile]

So what should Hendry have expected out of his bench? What should he have expected out of Nomar? Third base? Second base? Left field? Right Field? Pitching Staff?

 

This isn't rocket science, you simply go position by position and compute what you think each player will do. Add it all up and you get and overall run number.

 

Last year this Cubs team scored 789 runs. How many more should we have expected out of this team? The 2003 team scored 724 runs. Scoring 825 runs would have been the 6th highest run total for the Cubs since 1900. So yes I think 825 is a reasonable ceiling. Yes I do think expecting SS, 2nd base, and third base to miss some playing thus lowering the run value. Yes I do expect a bench of blanco, macias, and perez to underperform. Wouldn't you?

 

The cubs in 2004 allowed 665 runs, in 2003 they gave up 683 runs. So yeah expecting a team to give up around 680 to 700 runs is reasonable.

 

You have Greg Maddux at 39 years and very unlikely to have a Roger Clemens like resurgence. You had Carlos Zambrano posting a 2.75 ERA last year, something that is unlikely to happen again or be lower the next year. You have a team relying on Mitre and a bunch of young untested throwers to to pitch a lot of innings. I don't see how you can expect this teams pitching staff to allow only 665 runs again. 700 to 725 runs seems completely reasonable.

 

 

 

So if Hendry had a chance to do it all over again he should change nothing? That what he did was the best possible moves or the only moves he could make. Is that your position?

[cubbieinexile]

Diamond Mind Baseball projected the Cubs to win 83 games this year.

 

They expected the Cubs to score 783 runs and allow 768 runs.

 

 

 

 

Chicago Cubs (83-79, division title 1%, wild card 18%)

After coming within three games of the wildcard, the Cubs go into the season minus Sammy Sosa, Moises Alou, Mark Grudzielanek, and Matt Clement. Those are significant losses, but turnover is normal, and the question is whether you took the money you saved on those players and invested it well. They chose to go after Jeromy Burnitz, Jerry Hairston, and Nomar Garciaparra.

 

It sure looks as if the Cubs have lost more than they gained. Even though a lot of things went right for the Chicago offense last year -- pretty good health, better-than-career-norm performances from several players, and the league's second-best park for offense -- they were still only 7th in the league in scoring. A full season from Nomar will be a big boost, but it's not reasonable to expect a combination of Todd Hollandsworth, Jason Dubois, Jerry Hairston, and a Coors-less Jeromy Burnitz to match what Alou and Sosa provided in 2004.

 

Clement was every bit as good as Kerry Wood and Mark Prior last year, so he's a big loss. We've penciled Glendon Rusch into Clement's spot in the rotation, and that's a bit of a gamble. Rusch was surprisingly good in 2004 (6-2, 3.47 in 16 starts and 16 appearances out of the pen), but if he reverts to his career ERA of 4.93, their other options aren't exactly championship quality. And it's very, very hard to get excited about this bullpen. Pitching health is always a key factor for any team, but if the Cubs don't get full seasons of top quality pitching from Wood, Prior, Carlos Zambrano, and Greg Maddux, they're not going anywhere.

[CubsWin]

So if Hendry had a chance to do it all over again he should change nothing? That what he did was the best possible moves or the only moves he could make. Is that your position?

No. I'm fairly certain if he had to do it all over again knowing what he knows now that he would do a lot of things differently.

 

But thats the point. He didn't know, in fact no one knew, and if they say they did they are trying to sell you a bill of goods. He may have had reason to suspect some guys would have off years, and he may have had what he and his scouts thought were solid back-up plans for that eventuality. But sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't . He isn't perfect.

 

He took some gambles and they didn't work out. For that, he is responsible. When you compound those failed gambles with all the other stuff that was beyond his or any other GMs control, you get the results that we got. But you seem to be saying that he should have seen it all coming, and you haven't shown much evidence to support that position besides some projections. In order for any projection to hold water in such a debate as this, you would have to introduce the projector's track record, and it would have to be pretty darn accurate over several years for the projection to apply to this discussion, wouldn't it?

[cubbieinexile]

Diamond mind has been doing their preseason track records for years now. I have posted my predictions on this site as well and have come awfully close on wins and runs.

 

So everybody who said the outfield is going to be shaky and that the starting staff is going to have health issues was just pulling our leg? So you honestly thought that a Burnitz, Dubworth, and Patterson were going to be a productive outfield? You honestly thought that Kerry Wood would be healthy? That Nomar would be healthy throughout the season? I know I hoped all those things to happen but I didn't seriously think they would happen.

 

General - Tips on generating individual stats. Subscribe

From: cubbieinexile 1/22/2003 6:52 pm

To: ALL (1 of 10)

 

32858.1

 

For the last couple of pre-seasons now I have observed many a player prediction on this site. Almost all of them suffer from the same fatal flaw it seems. While a single player prediction on its own looks reasonable when all the players totals are added the flaw becomes rather apparent. Often times people have team totals of record proportions. Highest Home Run total of all time, most runs scored since the 1929, lowest ERA since 1908, so forth and so forth. Furthermore even after a person makes these predictions they often put the win total too low for a team with these kind of record numbers. So here are some suggestions.

 

Look at the team as a whole, and the league as a whole first. Consider last year and recent trends as well. Meaning decide first whether the league is going to be a high scoring league or a pitchers league. For instance the Cubs since 1998 when they adopted a more HR style have consistently been above 700 runs scored. With 1998 being the highwater mark at 831 and 2002 being the low mark at 706. So for the Cubs we are probably looking at a team that will score anywhere from 700 to 850 runs this year. To further hone this we need to decide how the Cubs will respond with runners on base, and the amount of home runs they will hit. Last year the Cubs were not particularly good at scoring that runner, nor even getting that man is scoring position. Which caused the Cubs to have the lowest run total despite the second highest hr total in 5 years. Why does this average matter? Because the vast majority of runs scored happen with runners in scoring position. Something to the toon of 70%. So this stat is defintily important. Which means you have to ask yourself was last years # a fluke? Was it a problem that was corrected, or is it still a concern?

 

Now for the Home Runs. The most home runs the Cubs have ever hit is 212 (1998) and the league record is 249 (Houston, 2000). Last year the Cubs had 200 home runs. The Cubs should hit around 185 to 210 home runs this year as a team. I would like to mention something that I think is important right now. Many people when they make predictions for the Cubs just do it for the starters and maybe one or two other guys. The problem with this is it fails to factor in the bench. Many a persons prediction has the Cubs starters hitting over 200 homers without factoring in a bench that almost always hits at least 20 more home runs. Which would put the Cub total at or over the 220 total mark. Which for the Cubs is darn near impossile to achieve. Why do I say it is impossible? Because outside of Colorado it has only happened in the NL a handful of times. With the most happening in 2000 at the peak of HR hitting. Since then the rates all across the board have been declining.

 

Once you decide home run total and how well the Cubs will hit with runners on you can make a prediction on total runs for the team. For instance I think this team wil hit around 190-195 HR's and improve on there hitting with runners on. Last year it was .241, the two years before that it was both .269. Around .260 seems like a good point. Which means the Cubs will get around 1560 PA with RISP with 220 of them being walks. That leaves 1340 at bats with a .260 avg means 348 hits. Looking at the last three years the Cubs hit totals have been around 64.6% of there run total with RISP. I'll use 64.2 becuase I think we will be closer to 2000-2001 type performance which had a lower average (64.1) than 2002. So my total runs for RISP would be 542 runs. 50 runs better than last year but 20 or so runs worse than 2000-2001. I'll further decide that this number will represent 73% of the teams total, which would be smack dab in the middle of 00-01 avgs. So that will give me a team run total of 742 runs.

 

So if I were making predictions I would use 195 HR's and 745 runs as my team totals and then spread them though out the team. Remembering that RBI totals are usually less than runs by about 30.

 

 

 

 

 

For Pitching you first have to realize that the starters are only going to recieve around 105 to 115 decisions. Regardless of how good or bad they are. I believe all the NL teams have starter decision totals within those parameters. One or two I think are higher. Once you have a total decision amount you can then distribute those totals to your starters however you like. Though one should remember that a starter usually gets a decision on 70-75% of his starts. Unless you are a back of the rotation type pitcher which would make your % lower or a good ace which would make your % higher.

 

To get a final record one has to decide how good the pitching and defense will be to get a run allowed total. If you feel the Cubs starters will continue there recent two year trend of being good or even better then there run total (earned) would be around 435 or lower. Last year the Cubs starters ERA was 4.02 if you project a better staff then of say 3.90 then there run total is 423 runs (The starters will generally pitch around 975 innings), 3.80 is 412. I for one think the Cubs starters will be around 3.90 to 4.05.

 

Now we need to figure out the bullpens run total. First we need to decide how many innings they will pitch. This can be somewhat tricky since NL totals are all over the board on this. The quick and the dirty on this would be to take 162*9 and then subtract how many innings you projected for your starters. Of course this won't be totally accurate since you will leave out extra inning games and games that did not need the Cubs pitchers in the 9th. The Cubs have for the last 3 years or so had there pen throw 460 or so innings. But here is an important fact, Dusty Baker is now in charge and he has traditionally used his starters longer and his bullpen consequently less. So if we were to say the Cubs starters throw 995 innings I would then say the Cubs bullpen should throw around 435 innings. From there you have to decide how good they will be. I for one think they will be around 4.05 era for a run total of 196 runs. Put the two together and my prediction would be around 630 runs allowed by the pitchers. For combined ERA of 3.97.

 

Finally we have to decide on fielding. For the most part that is really just a guess. Since most defensive metrics are either too primitive or over most peoples head. My gut tells me that this team being younger and having some vets on the bench who can field, will be better defensively than last year. Most NL teams fall within the range of 50-70 unearned runs a year. I'll say the Cubs give up 50. That would then give us a runs allowed total of 680 runs.

 

So if using my predictions we have a team that scores 745 runs and allows 680 runs. Using the pythagorean winning % formula I come up with a team that will win 54.2% of its games. Or a won-loss record of 88-74. But now we have to factor in the manager, the bullpen, and RISP. These projections are most effected by 1-run decisions, and 1-run decisions are hard to predict becuase they vary from year-year. But since we already decided know how good/bad the bullpen is, and how good/bad are hitters are in RISP situations we can make some guesses. At the very least I think this year we will be around .500 in 1-run games which if that holds true than the Pythagorean projection will be accurate. I think this year though that we will be slightly better in 1-run situations so bump the projection up a bit.

 

If I had to guess I would say the Cubs will win between 85 to 90 games this year

[Larry Horse]

Diamond mind has been doing their preseason track records for years now. I have posted my predictions on this site as well and have come awfully close on wins and runs.

 

So everybody who said the outfield is going to be shaky and that the starting staff is going to have health issues was just pulling our leg? So you honestly thought that a Burnitz, Dubworth, and Patterson were going to be a productive outfield? You honestly thought that Kerry Wood would be healthy? That Nomar would be healthy throughout the season? I know I hoped all those things to happen but I didn't seriously think they would happen.

 

 

And I'll make my prediction right now regarding next year. Nomar will be on the DL, and will not play a full season again for the Cubs. . If Wood doesn't change his mechanics, he will be on the DL.

 

If Hendry doesn't see that, and plans on full seasons from both, then he is being foolish.