Rumored trade proposal (Pierre to Cubs for Hill/Patterson)

[CubfaninCA]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

100 years of baseball is the proof.

 

Hairston is not his equal even when throwing out reality and playing fantasy baseball. Pierre's ability to steal bases far surpasses Hairston.

[CubfaninCA]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

 

If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

[XZero771679666304]

And if you have a .326 OBP you better have a hell of alot better than a SB% of 77%.

 

Hairston won't be our leadoff man, and God willing neither will Pierre.

[E.J.]

I think Dusty Baker found his way to NSBB and decided to start posting...

[David]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

 

If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?

[XZero771679666304]

I think Dusty Baker found his way to NSBB and decided to start posting...

 

Gotta have that speed at the top, dude.

[imb]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

 

If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?

 

HE'S NOT PLAYING FANTASY BASEBALL, he's just living in one.

[MPrior]

100 years of baseball is the proof.

 

This is exactly the kind of statement that prevents teams like the Cubs from doing things well. You (and they) trust to conventional baseball wisdom rather than actually presenting any facts to help them out.

 

So baseball managers have been batting speedy guys at the top of the order for 100 years. Show me something - anything - that demonstrates that that was a good idea. Or that that's what led to their success.

 

Human beings were enslaving other human beings for thousands of years. Was that a good idea? People had assumed for an equally long time that the earth was flat. Did that turn out to be true?

 

The point is that just because someone's been doing something for 100 years, it doesn't make is right. Give me some real evidence - and don't just say "look at Furcal and Marcus Giles' stats." Cite those stats, and explain how they support your point. Then maybe people will listen.

[CubfaninCA]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

 

So if you believe that, prove it.

 

Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005.

 

I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense.

 

When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point.

 

so, in other words, you have nothing to back up what you were saying. It's ok, I dont think anyone thought you did.

 

So you want me to look up several years of Marlins boxscores and find where someone else batted 2nd instead of Castillo. I'll stand by 100 years of baseball conventional wisdom. Castillo's just an aberration.

[E.J.]

I forgot the game hasn't changed a bit in 100 years...

[David]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

 

So if you believe that, prove it.

 

Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005.

 

I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense.

 

When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point.

 

so, in other words, you have nothing to back up what you were saying. It's ok, I dont think anyone thought you did.

 

So you want me to look up several years of Marlins boxscores and find where someone else batted 2nd instead of Castillo. I'll stand by 100 years of baseball conventional wisdom. Castillo's just an aberration.

 

Yup.. Conventional wisdom, God knows, is always right.

 

Can't argue with centuries of history..

 

Hey, I better not go outside now in the rain, I might catch a cold. :roll:

[CubfaninCA]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

 

If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?

 

You couldn't tell that my answer's no?

[imb]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

 

So if you believe that, prove it.

 

Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005.

 

I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense.

 

When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point.

 

so, in other words, you have nothing to back up what you were saying. It's ok, I dont think anyone thought you did.

 

So you want me to look up several years of Marlins boxscores and find where someone else batted 2nd instead of Castillo. I'll stand by 100 years of baseball conventional wisdom. Castillo's just an aberration.

 

I just want you to actually show something to back up what youre saying.

 

I mean, anyone can say something like "When Pierre is on base, the batter gains the ability to FLY", but if they have no proof to back up that statement, then it's a worthless statement.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

so, in other words, you have nothing to back up what you were saying. It's ok, I dont think anyone thought you did.

 

So you want me to look up several years of Marlins boxscores and find where someone else batted 2nd instead of Castillo. I'll stand by 100 years of baseball conventional wisdom. Castillo's just an aberration.

 

That's quite the aberration, he's been hitting second behind Pierre for over 1500 PA's.

[David]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

 

If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?

 

You couldn't tell that my answer's no?

 

Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either.

[MPrior]

I'd like to see stats on how #2 hitters have performed with their leadoff men on base vs. how they've performed without them on base throughout the history of baseball (and, perhaps more pertinently, for the last few years as well). Does anyone know where we can find stats like that?

[CubfaninCA]

100 years of baseball is the proof.

 

This is exactly the kind of statement that prevents teams like the Cubs from doing things well. You (and they) trust to conventional baseball wisdom rather than actually presenting any facts to help them out.

 

So baseball managers have been batting speedy guys at the top of the order for 100 years. Show me something - anything - that demonstrates that that was a good idea. Or that that's what led to their success.

 

Human beings were enslaving other human beings for thousands of years. Was that a good idea? People had assumed for an equally long time that the earth was flat. Did that turn out to be true?

 

The point is that just because someone's been doing something for 100 years, it doesn't make is right. Give me some real evidence - and don't just say "look at Furcal and Marcus Giles' stats." Cite those stats, and explain how they support your point. Then maybe people will listen.

 

I'll have to find the thread where I cited them. I'll just take the CW of people who have actually played the game over guys who wish they did. Sorry.

[E.J.]

I'd like to see stats on how #2 hitters have performed with their leadoff men on base vs. how they've performed without them on base throughout the history of baseball (and, perhaps more pertinently, for the last few years as well). Does anyone know where we can find stats like that?

 

Paging Fred. :D

[XZero771679666304]

Even if a guy like Pierre distracts the pitcher, the man at the plate also has to worry about hit and runs, or taking potentially hittable pitches if the runner is given the steal sign, or protecting the runner, etc.

 

At best, it's a wash.

 

And the "100 years of wisdom" is the same crap that motivated Dusty to bat Corey leadoff.

[CubfaninCA]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

 

If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?

 

You couldn't tell that my answer's no?

 

Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either.

 

Cmon man. YOu should be able to tell that I was saying that Pierre's a viable option even though his obp over the past 3 years and his career (.350-355) aren't stellar. He's viable cause he's really fast, and he gets on base at a good clip. Anaheim, CWS, Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta have done well w/out stellar obpers.

[David]

100 years of baseball is the proof.

 

This is exactly the kind of statement that prevents teams like the Cubs from doing things well. You (and they) trust to conventional baseball wisdom rather than actually presenting any facts to help them out.

 

So baseball managers have been batting speedy guys at the top of the order for 100 years. Show me something - anything - that demonstrates that that was a good idea. Or that that's what led to their success.

 

Human beings were enslaving other human beings for thousands of years. Was that a good idea? People had assumed for an equally long time that the earth was flat. Did that turn out to be true?

 

The point is that just because someone's been doing something for 100 years, it doesn't make is right. Give me some real evidence - and don't just say "look at Furcal and Marcus Giles' stats." Cite those stats, and explain how they support your point. Then maybe people will listen.

 

I'll have to find the thread where I cited them. I'll just take the CW of people who have actually played the game over guys who wish they did. Sorry.

 

 

YEA... we're just jealous cuz Dusty's been with better gals than we could ever hope!!

[David]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

 

If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?

 

You couldn't tell that my answer's no?

 

Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either.

 

Cmon man. YOu should be able to tell that I was saying that Pierre's a viable option even though his obp over the past 3 years and his career (.350-355) aren't stellar. He's viable cause he's really fast, and he gets on base at a good clip. Anaheim, CWS, Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta have done well w/out stellar obpers.

 

You're right. His 70-ish stolen base percentage makes him a viable leadoff option when Hairston isn't. How could I have missed that...

[CubfaninCA]

Even if a guy like Pierre distracts the pitcher, the man at the plate also has to worry about hit and runs, or taking potentially hittable pitches if the runner is given the steal sign, or protecting the runner, etc.

 

At best, it's a wash.

 

And the "100 years of wisdom" is the same crap that motivated Dusty to bat Corey leadoff.

 

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too.

[VVMattVV]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

 

If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?

 

You couldn't tell that my answer's no?

 

Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either.

 

Cmon man. YOu should be able to tell that I was saying that Pierre's a viable option even though his obp over the past 3 years and his career (.350-355) aren't stellar. He's viable cause he's really fast, and he gets on base at a good clip. Anaheim, CWS, Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta have done well w/out stellar obpers.

 

They'd done well because of their great pitching, not because they have guys with speed in their lineups. Anaheim, CWS, and Houston didn't have good offenses this year, why use them as an example?

[David]

Even if a guy like Pierre distracts the pitcher, the man at the plate also has to worry about hit and runs, or taking potentially hittable pitches if the runner is given the steal sign, or protecting the runner, etc.

 

At best, it's a wash.

 

And the "100 years of wisdom" is the same crap that motivated Dusty to bat Corey leadoff.

 

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too.

 

I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility.

 

Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...?