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

[AAApittsburgh]

I did some looking up of Pierre's stats in comparison with other NL leadoff hitters, to see how worthless he was. Ranked with players that had enough AB's to qualify.

 

OBP

 

2002 --- 2nd in the NL

2003 --- 1st in the NL

2004 --- 2nd in the NL

2005 --- 7th in the NL

 

 

Pierre has been top 1 or 2 leadoff hitter OBP (qualified) in the NL for 3 out of the last 4 years. That is not too bad.

 

from ESPN website.

That just goes to show that there are a lot of stupid managers in baseball. :wink:

[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.

 

Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years.

 

You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together?

 

Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention.

 

Just my groundbreaking work on Furcal and Giles. :)

 

As I've said a few times, I'll go w/ the cw. Pitchers, hitters and managers may know a little something.

[CUBZ99]

I did some looking up of Pierre's stats in comparison with other NL leadoff hitters, to see how worthless he was. Ranked with players that had enough AB's to qualify.

 

OBP

 

2002 --- 2nd in the NL

2003 --- 1st in the NL

2004 --- 2nd in the NL

2005 --- 7th in the NL

 

 

Pierre has been top 1 or 2 leadoff hitter OBP (qualified) in the NL for 3 out of the last 4 years. That is not too bad.

 

from ESPN website.

That just goes to show that there are a lot of stupid managers in baseball. :wink:

 

Or maybe that this Pierre guy can actually lead off?

[CubfaninCA]

I did some looking up of Pierre's stats in comparison with other NL leadoff hitters, to see how worthless he was. Ranked with players that had enough AB's to qualify.

 

OBP

 

2002 --- 2nd in the NL

2003 --- 1st in the NL

2004 --- 2nd in the NL

2005 --- 7th in the NL

 

 

Pierre has been top 1 or 2 leadoff hitter OBP (qualified) in the NL for 3 out of the last 4 years. That is not too bad.

 

from ESPN website.

 

Way to kill the thread. ;)

[CUBZ99]

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.

 

Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years.

 

You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together?

 

Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention.

 

Just my groundbreaking work on Furcal and Giles. :)

 

As I've said a few times, I'll go w/ the cw. Pitchers, hitters and managers may know a little something.

 

Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

[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.

 

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)...?

 

Hey, the media portrayed the Sox offense as smallball and Podsednik as a great leadoff hitter, so why let the facts get in the way?

 

Yes, because stats tell the whole story? ](*,)

 

When they are overwhelming, yes.

 

Go look at Podsednik and the Sox's stats in smallball categories (OBP, SB, SB%, etc.), not good at all. It was a poor run scoring offense that got by because of stellar pitching, bottom line. In fact the only category the Sox offense was in the top half of the league in was HR.

 

Smallball, you say?

 

.351 OBP is not good at all? or 59 SBs? Since you want to rely so heavily on his stats and CS's please list in detail under what game time situations they occurred. You must watch him alot to know that he is not a good small ball player. Did his CS come when there was nobody on and the WS were up by 5? or did they come when the game was on the line? Did he take chances at the right times?

 

First off, any time you take yourself off the bases, it's a bad thing.

 

351 is average for a leadoff man. And when you get caught 23 times in 82 attempts, situation become less of an issue.

 

In the postseason his SB% is an abysmal 62%, that's as important as it gets isn't it? And considering the high percentage of 1 and 2-run games the Sox played in during the regular season, I would imagine most of those CS came in situations where his run was important.

 

Either way, trying to mitigate a poor stat by rationalizing the situations his poor performance did or did not come in is a poor debate tactic. Either he is very good at stealing bases or he is not. And as it turns out, he isn't. As a leadoff man, if you aren't an efficient basestealer, you better have a really high OBP. He didn't. Nor did he score a lot of runs. Nor did he hit many double or triples.

 

Scott Podsednik had a decent OBP. He stole a lot of bases, but he also got caught stealing a lot.

 

He is nothing special.

[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.

 

Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years.

 

You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together?

 

Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention.

 

Just my groundbreaking work on Furcal and Giles. :)

 

As I've said a few times, I'll go w/ the cw. Pitchers, hitters and managers may know a little something.

 

Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

 

Am pretty sure he consults w/ Epstein in Boston. His input has helped the offense, and he should be given some credit for last year. Perhaps he's the guy who told Theo to let Pedro walk though?

[CUBZ99]

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)...?

 

Hey, the media portrayed the Sox offense as smallball and Podsednik as a great leadoff hitter, so why let the facts get in the way?

 

Yes, because stats tell the whole story? ](*,)

 

When they are overwhelming, yes.

 

Go look at Podsednik and the Sox's stats in smallball categories (OBP, SB, SB%, etc.), not good at all. It was a poor run scoring offense that got by because of stellar pitching, bottom line. In fact the only category the Sox offense was in the top half of the league in was HR.

 

Smallball, you say?

 

.351 OBP is not good at all? or 59 SBs? Since you want to rely so heavily on his stats and CS's please list in detail under what game time situations they occurred. You must watch him alot to know that he is not a good small ball player. Did his CS come when there was nobody on and the WS were up by 5? or did they come when the game was on the line? Did he take chances at the right times?

 

First off, any time you take yourself off the bases, it's a bad thing.

 

351 is average for a leadoff man. And when you get caught 23 times in 82 attempts, situation become less of an issue.

 

In the postseason his SB% is an abysmal 62%, that's as important as it gets isn't it? And considering the high percentage of 1 and 2-run games the Sox played in during the regular season, I would imagine most of those CS came in situations where his run was important.

 

Either way, trying to mitigate a poor stat by rationalizing the situations his poor performance did or did not come in is a poor debate tactic. Either he is very good at stealing bases or he is not. And as it turns out, he isn't. As a leadoff man, if you aren't an efficient basestealer, you better have a really high OBP. He didn't. Nor did he score a lot of runs. Nor did he hit many double or triples.

 

Scott Podsednik had a decent OBP. He stole a lot of bases, but he also got caught stealing a lot.

 

He is nothing special.

 

Thanks, I will remember that if I ever decide to go back to high school or college and join a Debate team. :wink:

 

I am a bit suprised that with the Cubs problems at lead off, you think that a .351 is decent or nothing special. I'm sure that D Lee would disagree with you.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

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.

 

Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years.

 

You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together?

 

Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention.

 

Just my groundbreaking work on Furcal and Giles. :)

 

As I've said a few times, I'll go w/ the cw. Pitchers, hitters and managers may know a little something.

 

So, you've proven that one speedy lead-off hitter has helped one number two hitter. How do you know that isn't the anomaly?

 

BTW, do you know how many times conventional wisdom has been proven wrong by the field of research? Pitchers, hitters, and managers may know something. That is true. But it is just as likely that they may believe something that is false simply because they have heard it so many times. That's where research comes in.

[JC]

 

Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

 

Not terribly relevant. IIRC, James' theory on closer by committee was misapplied in Boston. The theory is dependent on having specific types of arms, which Boston did not have.

[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.

 

Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years.

 

You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together?

 

Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention.

 

Just my groundbreaking work on Furcal and Giles. :)

 

As I've said a few times, I'll go w/ the cw. Pitchers, hitters and managers may know a little something.

 

So, you've proven that one speedy lead-off hitter has helped one number two hitter. How do you know that isn't the anomaly?

 

BTW, do you know how many times conventional wisdom has been proven wrong by the field of research? Pitchers, hitters, and managers may know something. That is true. But it is just as likely that they may believe something that is false simply because they have heard it so many times. That's where research comes in.

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

[Guest]

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?

Retrosheet event files would be your best bet. The only problem I see is that the while the retrosheet format keeps track of the lineup position of the batter on each play, it doesn't keep track of the lineup position of any of the baserunners. (So using the event files by themselves it would be difficult to differentiate ABs where the #8 hitter was on second from ABs where the leadoff batter was on second, at least when you're trying to do it en masse.)

Scratch that... it's actually pretty easy to do with retrosheet event files. In addition to the event tables there are also game tables that keep track of the fielding/lineup position for each player in every game. An example of how #2 hitters hit with various baserunners on first or second in 2004 home games:

 

With a leadoff hitter on first or second: .300 AVG, .445 SLG (~3200 AB)

With a non-leadoff hitter on first and/or second: .277 AVG, .415 SLG (~ 750 AB)

With no runners on first or second: .268 AVG, .414 SLG (~6000 AB)

 

That's really over-simplified, however. Other considerations should be taken into account, such as the out state of the inning (in addtion to the baserunner state), focusing on situations where speed would actually make a difference (the runner isn't blocked by another player on the next base), and a better classification of baserunner than simply leadoff/non-leadoff. (Such as categorizing runners based on a speed score or some such.)

Edited October 24, 2005 by Anonymous

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

 

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

[CubfaninCA]

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

 

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

 

Well you do have Yoda as your avator, so you may know something I don't.

 

In conclusion, the "cw" hasn't been debunked since there's not 100 years of stats on the topic.

[Guest]

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

 

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

 

Well you do have Yoda as your avator, so you may know something I don't.

 

In conclusion, the "cw" hasn't been debunked since there's not 100 years of stats on the topic.

No, but there are 30 years or so of publicly availabe information that would go a long way toward answering the question. I'm sure it's been studied before (and said study was discussed on this site before as well), and if I get some free time this winter I may look into it in more detail myself.

[CoolHandLuke]

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

 

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

 

Well you do have Yoda as your avator, so you may know something I don't.

 

In conclusion, the "cw" hasn't been debunked since there's not 100 years of stats on the topic.

 

Anyone else getting sick of the overuse of this abbreviation in this thread?

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Player A

 

2002: .268/.329/.376/.705

2003: .271/.353/.372/.725

2004: .303/.378/.397/.775

2005: .261/.336/.368/.704

 

Player B

 

2002: .287/.332/.343/.675

2003: .305/.361/.373/.734

2004: .326/.374/.407/.781

2005: .276/.326/.354/.680

 

Both are subpar defensive centerfielders. One is on our team, the other is Juan Pierre. Anyone think the difference between Hairston and Pierre is worth Rich Hill, nevermind Patterson?

 

Let me know how many seasons Hairston has posted 200 hits, or stole over 45 bases, or posted an OBP over 360, or struck out less than once every 15 times at bat (and roughly every 16 PAs)--OK?? What is the total on Hairston?

 

Thought so.

[imb]

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

 

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

 

Well you do have Yoda as your avator, so you may know something I don't.

 

In conclusion, the "cw" hasn't been debunked since there's not 100 years of stats on the topic.

 

Anyone else getting sick of the overuse of this abbreviation in this thread?

 

Not as sick as I am of seeing people completely forget to turn their brains on when reading a thread.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Player A

 

2002: .268/.329/.376/.705

2003: .271/.353/.372/.725

2004: .303/.378/.397/.775

2005: .261/.336/.368/.704

 

Player B

 

2002: .287/.332/.343/.675

2003: .305/.361/.373/.734

2004: .326/.374/.407/.781

2005: .276/.326/.354/.680

 

Both are subpar defensive centerfielders. One is on our team, the other is Juan Pierre. Anyone think the difference between Hairston and Pierre is worth Rich Hill, nevermind Patterson?

 

Let me know how many seasons Hairston has posted 200 hits, or stole over 45 bases, or posted an OBP over 360, or struck out less than once every 15 times at bat (and roughly every 16 PAs)--OK?? What is the total on Hairston?

 

Thought so.

 

I'm going to guess you didn't read any of the responses that followed this post.

 

Hairston when healthy has been Pierre's equal. If Pierre is so great, why don't we hear people saying "Hairston would be a great leadoff hitter if he was healthy" like we do with Wood, or Nomar?, etc.

[CubfaninCA]

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

 

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

 

Well you do have Yoda as your avator, so you may know something I don't.

 

In conclusion, the "cw" hasn't been debunked since there's not 100 years of stats on the topic.

 

Anyone else getting sick of the overuse of this abbreviation in this thread?

 

Not as sick as I am of seeing people completely forget to turn their brains on when reading a thread.

 

Clever insult.

 

Sorry that some of us do not possess an Ivy League diploma like you.

[imb]

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

 

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

 

Well you do have Yoda as your avator, so you may know something I don't.

 

In conclusion, the "cw" hasn't been debunked since there's not 100 years of stats on the topic.

 

Anyone else getting sick of the overuse of this abbreviation in this thread?

 

Not as sick as I am of seeing people completely forget to turn their brains on when reading a thread.

 

Clever insult.

 

Sorry that some of us do not possess an Ivy League diploma like you.

 

It doesnt take an Ivy League education to know that you shouldnt present something as fact without actual facts, and that the correct pattern for entering a thread is to read>comprehend>post.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Player A

 

2002: .268/.329/.376/.705

2003: .271/.353/.372/.725

2004: .303/.378/.397/.775

2005: .261/.336/.368/.704

 

Player B

 

2002: .287/.332/.343/.675

2003: .305/.361/.373/.734

2004: .326/.374/.407/.781

2005: .276/.326/.354/.680

 

Both are subpar defensive centerfielders. One is on our team, the other is Juan Pierre. Anyone think the difference between Hairston and Pierre is worth Rich Hill, nevermind Patterson?

 

Let me know how many seasons Hairston has posted 200 hits, or stole over 45 bases, or posted an OBP over 360, or struck out less than once every 15 times at bat (and roughly every 16 PAs)--OK?? What is the total on Hairston?

 

Thought so.

 

I'm going to guess you didn't read any of the responses that followed this post.

 

Hairston when healthy has been Pierre's equal. If Pierre is so great, why don't we hear people saying "Hairston would be a great leadoff hitter if he was healthy" like we do with Wood, or Nomar?, etc.

 

JHJ has not been Pierre's "equal", by any reasonable metric. Name me a player in the big leagues that strikes out less frequently than Pierre. Hint--it'll only take one hand, and JHJ will not be on one of those fingers.

 

Runs created. VARP. Stolen base percentage. Runs scored. OBP. Defensive efficiency. I bore myself with actual data.

 

Hairston--competent bench utility player.

Pierre--bona fide leadoff guy that CONTRIBUTES to his team's success. Had an off-year in 2005. I'm ready to buy low instead of buy high for once.

 

But then, I remember folks here calling Pat the Bat washed up at this time last year.

 

Pierre solves a need for us. There are other options that also fill that need. Arguably, some might be better options (eg, Milton Bradley or a one-year deal to Kenny Lofton).

 

Myself, I think Pierre works just fine, solves a problem, allows us to move on to other issues (and there are many). Plus, I like the upside with Pierre, why doesn't anyone acknowledge this? He's posted monster seasons before. One time is a fluke. Three times at age 28 is not. If he gives the Cubs another 200 hit, 350+ OBP, 50+ SB, 100+ runs scored, <35 K season, I don't care WHAT Patterson and Hill do elsewhere. They can't conceivably fill as great a need for this team, even if their unproven talents BOTH decide to come to fruition simultaneously in 2006.

 

I jump on Hill + Patterson for Pierre and don't look back. Substitute a lower pitching prospect for Hill, like Ryu or Aardsma, then even better. But I do Hill + Corey.

[CubfaninCA]

 

Yes cw has been proven wrong many times, but cw holds true sometimes as well. I have a feeling a good amount of pitchers would say that having guys on like Furcal and Pierre bothers them. It's a matter of certain hitters coming through. Some guys like Castillo just don't.

 

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

 

Well you do have Yoda as your avator, so you may know something I don't.

 

In conclusion, the "cw" hasn't been debunked since there's not 100 years of stats on the topic.

 

Anyone else getting sick of the overuse of this abbreviation in this thread?

 

Not as sick as I am of seeing people completely forget to turn their brains on when reading a thread.

 

Clever insult.

 

Sorry that some of us do not possess an Ivy League diploma like you.

 

It doesnt take an Ivy League education to know that you shouldnt present something as fact without actual facts, and that the correct pattern for entering a thread is to read>comprehend>post.

 

Sorry for having an opinion. Also, pass this along to CPatt who claimed that speed at the order helping hitting has been debunked. I guess he's an idiot as well.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Player A

 

2002: .268/.329/.376/.705

2003: .271/.353/.372/.725

2004: .303/.378/.397/.775

2005: .261/.336/.368/.704

 

Player B

 

2002: .287/.332/.343/.675

2003: .305/.361/.373/.734

2004: .326/.374/.407/.781

2005: .276/.326/.354/.680

 

Both are subpar defensive centerfielders. One is on our team, the other is Juan Pierre. Anyone think the difference between Hairston and Pierre is worth Rich Hill, nevermind Patterson?

 

Let me know how many seasons Hairston has posted 200 hits, or stole over 45 bases, or posted an OBP over 360, or struck out less than once every 15 times at bat (and roughly every 16 PAs)--OK?? What is the total on Hairston?

 

Thought so.

 

I'm going to guess you didn't read any of the responses that followed this post.

 

Hairston when healthy has been Pierre's equal. If Pierre is so great, why don't we hear people saying "Hairston would be a great leadoff hitter if he was healthy" like we do with Wood, or Nomar?, etc.

 

JHJ has not been Pierre's "equal", by any reasonable metric. Name me a player in the big leagues that strikes out less frequently than Pierre. Hint--it'll only take one hand, and JHJ will not be on one of those fingers.

 

Runs created. VARP. Stolen base percentage. Runs scored. OBP. Defensive efficiency. I bore myself with actual data.

 

Hairston--competent bench utility player.

Pierre--bona fide leadoff guy that CONTRIBUTES to his team's success. Had an off-year in 2005. I'm ready to buy low instead of buy high for once.

 

Look up. You can't tell me those lines aren't similar, if not creepily so. Listing off a bunch of counting statistics doesn't help, because Hairston's health has already been mentioned as a caveat. Pierre steals more bases, Hairston has more XBH's. Looking at rate stats, there's no reason why they aren't similar, and yet no one is calling Hairston an injury-prone quality leadoff man.

[NorthsideAvenger]

First: If this rumor is true, I'm not surprise the Marlins would asked for Hill. They are trying to sneak another good arm (he is a good arm, just needs confidence) out from underneath the Cubs noses. I'm not saying Hill will instantly become the next Willis, but I would like to hold onto Hill, and see if he does become a very good starter, or a Neal Cotts type lefty out of the bullpen.

 

Second: I don't know who does that trade value for the Marlins, but in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, would Pierre warrant both Patterson and Hill. Maybe Patterson and Van Buren, or Weston/Hill, but not Patterson/Hill. (BTW: Have you notice the Cubs have gone from Corey Patterson/Bobby Hill to Eric Patterson/Rich Hill, in terms of value to the org? Has that meet the new boss, same as the old boss feel to it?) I would offer up Cliff Bartosh and Corey Patterson for Pierre, nothing more.