ESPN1K says Cubs trying to finish a deal for Pierre

CUBZ99 · November 16, 2005

Wilkerson can also play first base. Which would also help solve the problem of finding a backup for Lee. I see him being a right fielder if not a bench player. Eventhough Wilkeron has a solid OBP he still isn't a good top of the order option. He doesn't have enough speed to bat leadoff and he strikes out too much to be bat second. His BB/K ratio is basically 3/5. You need a two hitter who will make a lot of contact so he can advance the runner. 147 Ks last year.

Wilkerson also is ten times better against lefties than righties. He batted 296, with a OBP 390, and an OPS of 804 last year against lefties. Righties on the other hand he was 228, 335, 737. If anything this shows Wilkerson is no better than a platoon player.

My point is Wilkerson is not the answer. He would be a great guy to have coming off the bench and giving guys a day off but thats it.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. Wilkerson as a bench player...OML....that's funny as hell.
he only hits .250

OBP is not the only thing that makes a good leadoff or nuber 2 hitter. He needs a low number of strikeouts, a decent batting average in the 275, and a good OBP. Wilkerson only achieves one of the three. Lets say you have Wilkerson batting second and Furcal batting first. Would you want someone who strikes out 150 times a year batting behind Furcal. Would we not complain about his inability to advance the runner? I'd rather have a guy who bats 285 with a 330 OBP with a low number of strikeouts batting second. The reason being that he would be more likely to advance the runner. I think we are overvalueing OBP because of how bad the top of our order was last year. We can't forget their are other things than OBP involved in making a good top of the order hitter.

I also said in a later post that I may have exaggerated just a bit and that I just believe Wilkerson is not the best fit for our offense.

The fact is Wilkerson is the perfect fit for this team. He's a left-handed bat that gets on base. If we sign Furcal, he won't be needed to hit lead-off. We also wouldn't need him to hit second either. Walker, Murton, or Cedeno could hit in that spot. Wilkerson would be ideal in the fifth or sixth spot in the order.

If we don't sign Furcal and fail to get another hitter capable of hitting lead-off, Wilkerson isn't a poor option to do that. Not making outs is the most important thing a hitter can do, and Wilkerson does that better than most of the other options the Cubs have considered.

Lets not get carried away. Wilkerson gets on base at a decent clip, but also strikes out a ton, has little speed and has a lower BA than Neifi Perez. He is a decent option, if the Cubs can't land Pierre or Furcal, or even if the Cubs land both Pierre and Furcal.

If the Cubs land Furcal, Wilkerson is a better fit than Pierre. In fact, Wilkerson is a better fit than Pierre regardless of any other moves.

I'm not complaining if they pick up any of the players you listed.

JeffH · November 16, 2005

If you'd rather have a .285/.330 low K hitter hitting 2nd than Wilkerson's .250/.350 100+ K's(lest we forget that Wilkerson has OBP's in '02-'04 of .370, .380, .374) then you are going to score fewer runs. That's all there is to it.

The effect of this kind of thing is frequently exaggerated.

For someone with 700 plate appearances in a season, the difference between a .350 OBP and a .330 OBP is 14 times on base or a little more than one every other week.

Yes, I know that each time an out is not made another batter comes up, the inning is extended, etc. but still...

AlwaysaCub · November 16, 2005

If you'd rather have a .285/.330 low K hitter hitting 2nd than Wilkerson's .250/.350 100+ K's(lest we forget that Wilkerson has OBP's in '02-'04 of .370, .380, .374) then you are going to score fewer runs. That's all there is to it.

The effect of this kind of thing is frequently exaggerated.

For someone with 700 plate appearances in a season, the difference between a .350 OBP and a .330 OBP is 14 times on base or a little more than one every other week.

Yes, I know that each time an out is not made another batter comes up, the inning is extended, etc. but still...

Maybe in terms of one player...you cannot think like that for eight everyday players. If we were willing to give those 20 points of OBP back at every position, as the Cubs actually appear to do, we would give back 112 times on base.

JeffH · November 16, 2005

Agree 100%.

BigbadB · November 16, 2005

Call it an exaggeration if you wish, but the Cubs had several poor OBP guys in the line up last year. 14 times on base from a .350 to .330 over the course of a season x all the players who had worse than a .330 makes your run scoring chances pitiful.

Put nothing but .350+ OBP guys throughout the line up and you're going to maximize your run scoring chances. Accept a .330 or below here and a .330 or below there, and you are limiting the offensive capabilities.

After watching the futile offense these last few years, in regards to OBP, and I'm ready to see them go out and get nothing but .350+ OBP's in every spot in the line up. Not only do they have the cash and resources to make it happen, but the pitching staff deserves some run support for a change.

brinoch · November 16, 2005

Again, I'd love to see the Cubs go all out for Wilkerson (if he is truly available) and then Giles. Keep Walker, play Cedeno, and sign another starting pitcher. If there's another trade out there that will improve the club, make it (like Giles from Atlanta, for example).

Upgrading a Baseball team is an exercise in economics.

And I can't see how you justify paying $9M for Furcal when Cedeno stands a good chance to give you similar production at a tiny fraction of the cost. Let's say Cedeno can give us .280/.330/.380 (.710 OPS) as a rookie. I think that's a reasonable, conservative estimate. Compare that to Neifi! in 2005: .274/.298/.383 (.681 OPS). There's an upgrade right there -- and, yes, I know that Furcal is probably an upgrade over Cedeno. But how much of one? Furcal's been pretty consistently in the .284/.348/.429 (.777 OPS) range (that's his '05 numbers which are slightly higher than his career numbers). So, Furcal is likely worth 60-70 points of OPS more than Cedeno, and about 100 points better than Neifi!. Now, are those 60-70 points of OPS worth $9-10M per year over the inexpensive in-house option? Not to me. Bat Cedeno 8th and break him in.

Trade from your stength, upgrade your weaknesses, and, where practicable, make modest upgrades where you are about average. Our weakness is OBP and production from the OF. So, then, let's find players to upgrade said weakness. And there's one on the market -- Brian Giles. Offer him 3 for $36M with a club option for an additional year at $12M, and a buyout for $2M.

When I see Burnitz giving us .258/.322/.435 (.757 OPS) in RF whereas Giles provided .301/.423/.483 (.905 OPS) in a down year, I see a position of need. That's 150 points of OPS right there. Say you can sign Giles for $12M per. Burnitz made $4.5M in '05. Would you pay $7.5M for those 150 points? I would. Upgrading RF with Giles would be a less expensive upgrade than Furcal at SS, and the benefits are greater.

How about CF... we know that needs an upgrade. And we can do a similar calculation. Our CF's gave us .234/.281/.362 (.643 OPS). That's terrible. Any reasonable upgrade here is worth it, frankly. Getting Wilkerson, Bradley or Pierre would be better, tremendously better, than what we had in '05. That said, what would each of them cost in salary and players for a trade. We have a Rule V roster crunch coming on, and we know it. Using some of that player capital in trade would be a good use of them, rather than losing another Sisco. The salary differences among the 3 of them aren't really large enough, in my opinion, to merit a deep discussion of cost benefit analysis. And since we have no idea what each would cost in trade, all we can really look at is production.

Pierre and Wilkerson had down years. Bradley was injured. So, I'll use career numbers for comparison to be fair.

Bradley: .269/.350/.484 (.834 OPS), 28 years old for 2006 season

Pierre: .305/.355/.375 (.730 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season

Wilkerson: .256/.365/.452 (.817 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season

Bradley and Wilkerson both have significantly more power than Pierre, who is a much greater stolen base threat. We know Bradley is a headcase, and a problem in the club house. Theoretically speaking, Baker is supposed to fix this problem, and lets say he can. In that case, I'll take either Bradley or Wilkerson over Pierre.

RockTheIvy · November 16, 2005

Again, I'd love to see the Cubs go all out for Wilkerson (if he is truly available) and then Giles. Keep Walker, play Cedeno, and sign another starting pitcher. If there's another trade out there that will improve the club, make it (like Giles from Atlanta, for example).

Upgrading a Baseball team is an exercise in economics.

And I can't see how you justify paying $9M for Furcal when Cedeno stands a good chance to give you similar production at a tiny fraction of the cost. Let's say Cedeno can give us .280/.330/.380 (.710 OPS) as a rookie. I think that's a reasonable, conservative estimate. Compare that to Neifi! in 2005: .274/.298/.383 (.681 OPS). There's an upgrade right there -- and, yes, I know that Furcal is probably an upgrade over Cedeno. But how much of one? Furcal's been pretty consistently in the .284/.348/.429 (.777 OPS) range (that's his '05 numbers which are slightly higher than his career numbers). So, Furcal is likely worth 60-70 points of OPS more than Cedeno, and about 100 points better than Neifi!. Now, are those 60-70 points of OPS worth $9-10M per year over the inexpensive in-house option? Not to me. Bat Cedeno 8th and break him in.

Trade from your stength, upgrade your weaknesses, and, where practicable, make modest upgrades where you are about average. Our weakness is OBP and production from the OF. So, then, let's find players to upgrade said weakness. And there's one on the market -- Brian Giles. Offer him 3 for $36M with a club option for an additional year at $12M, and a buyout for $2M.

When I see Burnitz giving us .258/.322/.435 (.757 OPS) in RF whereas Giles provided .301/.423/.483 (.905 OPS) in a down year, I see a position of need. That's 150 points of OPS right there. Say you can sign Giles for $12M per. Burnitz made $4.5M in '05. Would you pay $7.5M for those 150 points? I would. Upgrading RF with Giles would be a less expensive upgrade than Furcal at SS, and the benefits are greater.

How about CF... we know that needs an upgrade. And we can do a similar calculation. Our CF's gave us .234/.281/.362 (.643 OPS). That's terrible. Any reasonable upgrade here is worth it, frankly. Getting Wilkerson, Bradley or Pierre would be better, tremendously better, than what we had in '05. That said, what would each of them cost in salary and players for a trade. We have a Rule V roster crunch coming on, and we know it. Using some of that player capital in trade would be a good use of them, rather than losing another Sisco. The salary differences among the 3 of them aren't really large enough, in my opinion, to merit a deep discussion of cost benefit analysis. And since we have no idea what each would cost in trade, all we can really look at is production.

Pierre and Wilkerson had down years. Bradley was injured. So, I'll use career numbers for comparison to be fair.

Bradley: .269/.350/.484 (.834 OPS), 28 years old for 2006 season
Pierre: .305/.355/.375 (.730 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season
Wilkerson: .256/.365/.452 (.817 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season

Bradley and Wilkerson both have significantly more power than Pierre, who is a much greater stolen base threat. We know Bradley is a headcase, and a problem in the club house. Theoretically speaking, Baker is supposed to fix this problem, and lets say he can. In that case, I'll take either Bradley or Wilkerson over Pierre.

Excellent Post, Sir. It's just too bad baseball teams don't value their players in the same way. I don't think Hendry is even hip to OBP, and if he is, he surely doesn't understand how to value it properly.

KingKongvs.Godzilla · November 16, 2005

Wilkerson from the leadoff spot between 2002-2004 (1059)

.258 .372 .466 .838

The Cubs haven't had that kind of production in the leadoff spot in...well a long, long, long time.

And that pwns Pierre all around (no offense to him, but getting caught stealing 26% of the time pisses me off).

Mark_R · November 16, 2005

Even with his poor numbers in 2005, he was a better hitter than Burnitz who we used in the fifth spot.

Didn't Burnitz out OPS Wilkerson?

I think the conversation for Wilkerson would start with Felix Pie and mosey on down the line.

jmajew · November 16, 2005

Again, I'd love to see the Cubs go all out for Wilkerson (if he is truly available) and then Giles. Keep Walker, play Cedeno, and sign another starting pitcher. If there's another trade out there that will improve the club, make it (like Giles from Atlanta, for example).

Upgrading a Baseball team is an exercise in economics.

And I can't see how you justify paying $9M for Furcal when Cedeno stands a good chance to give you similar production at a tiny fraction of the cost. Let's say Cedeno can give us .280/.330/.380 (.710 OPS) as a rookie. I think that's a reasonable, conservative estimate. Compare that to Neifi! in 2005: .274/.298/.383 (.681 OPS). There's an upgrade right there -- and, yes, I know that Furcal is probably an upgrade over Cedeno. But how much of one? Furcal's been pretty consistently in the .284/.348/.429 (.777 OPS) range (that's his '05 numbers which are slightly higher than his career numbers). So, Furcal is likely worth 60-70 points of OPS more than Cedeno, and about 100 points better than Neifi!. Now, are those 60-70 points of OPS worth $9-10M per year over the inexpensive in-house option? Not to me. Bat Cedeno 8th and break him in.

Trade from your stength, upgrade your weaknesses, and, where practicable, make modest upgrades where you are about average. Our weakness is OBP and production from the OF. So, then, let's find players to upgrade said weakness. And there's one on the market -- Brian Giles. Offer him 3 for $36M with a club option for an additional year at $12M, and a buyout for $2M.

When I see Burnitz giving us .258/.322/.435 (.757 OPS) in RF whereas Giles provided .301/.423/.483 (.905 OPS) in a down year, I see a position of need. That's 150 points of OPS right there. Say you can sign Giles for $12M per. Burnitz made $4.5M in '05. Would you pay $7.5M for those 150 points? I would. Upgrading RF with Giles would be a less expensive upgrade than Furcal at SS, and the benefits are greater.

How about CF... we know that needs an upgrade. And we can do a similar calculation. Our CF's gave us .234/.281/.362 (.643 OPS). That's terrible. Any reasonable upgrade here is worth it, frankly. Getting Wilkerson, Bradley or Pierre would be better, tremendously better, than what we had in '05. That said, what would each of them cost in salary and players for a trade. We have a Rule V roster crunch coming on, and we know it. Using some of that player capital in trade would be a good use of them, rather than losing another Sisco. The salary differences among the 3 of them aren't really large enough, in my opinion, to merit a deep discussion of cost benefit analysis. And since we have no idea what each would cost in trade, all we can really look at is production.

Pierre and Wilkerson had down years. Bradley was injured. So, I'll use career numbers for comparison to be fair.

Bradley: .269/.350/.484 (.834 OPS), 28 years old for 2006 season
Pierre: .305/.355/.375 (.730 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season
Wilkerson: .256/.365/.452 (.817 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season

Bradley and Wilkerson both have significantly more power than Pierre, who is a much greater stolen base threat. We know Bradley is a headcase, and a problem in the club house. Theoretically speaking, Baker is supposed to fix this problem, and lets say he can. In that case, I'll take either Bradley or Wilkerson over Pierre.

This was by far the best post I've read on this site so far. I don't necessarily think a team with all guys who have a high OBP but low BAs is gonna be a winner. You won't have anyone driving in the runs. I think teams need to be built systematically

A leadoff hitter needs to have a BA/OBP/OPS of 285/360/770 and he has to have speed so he can score from second on a single if there is two outs. Second 280/340/780 and he cannot strike out. He has to be able to put the ball in play consistantly and advance the runner. Third 300/390/900 and needs 30 hr potential. Four 280/370/950 and he can strike out around 100-120 times a year and 40 hr potential. Fifth 285/360/900 with 40 hr potential. Sixth 270/345/830 and 30 hr potential. Seventh 275/335/800. Eighth 260/320/750. He must have speed though. If the pitcher bunts him over to second and there are two outs he needs to be able to score on a single. This would give you team averages taking in the pitcher around 270/340/795

So my ideal team with players available would be:

CF Lofton (2 mil)

2B Walker (2.5)

RF Giles (11 mil)

1B D. Lee (8.5)

3B Ramirez (10.5)

C Barrett (4)

LF Murton (.5)

SS Cedeno (.5)

It is a relatively cheap one also...Only about 39.5 mil. I understand probably once a week you will need to be starting either Patterson or Hairston in center. If you cannot get Giles then you try to trade for someone like Bradley and bat him fifth. I really don't see why we would need to trade for anyone. Everything we need is right there in Free Agency.

November 16, 2005

OBP is not the only thing that makes a good leadoff or nuber 2 hitter. He needs a low number of strikeouts, a decent batting average in the 275, and a good OBP.

Of all the spots in the lineup, the leadoff spot is where a high strikeout total/low BA (at least when compared to the hitter's OBP) matter the least. The main drawback of high OBP/low AVG and high K hiiters is their comparative weakness at advancing runners. K's only really hurt you because they're less likely to advance a baserunner than another type of out. Similarly, the only time a walk is worse off than a single is when there are runners on base who could conceivably advance an extra base or two on a hit, whereas on a walk they may not advance a base at all. Basically, the moral of the story is that for a walk or strikeout to "hurt" your team there needs to be at least one runner on base. Leadoff hitters should have the fewest such opportunites (by far) of anyone in the lineup. Hence, strikeouts are not a big concern for a leadoff hitter, and neither is a low batting average. (Provided he can still maintain a good OBP by drawing lots of walks, that is.)

As far as the Cubs are concerned, I'd much rather have Bradley or Wilkerson than Pierre. Wilkerson provides a much more stable OBP than Pierre thanks to his walk rate, which tends to be much more consistent than the BABIP-dependent nature of Pierre's OBP. The same is mostly true of Bradley, and both men provide much more power than Pierre would, as well. As far as prospect costs go, Bradley would likely be the cheapest option of the three, though there's his reported attitude issues to consider.

CaliforniaRaisin · November 16, 2005

Again, I'd love to see the Cubs go all out for Wilkerson (if he is truly available) and then Giles. Keep Walker, play Cedeno, and sign another starting pitcher. If there's another trade out there that will improve the club, make it (like Giles from Atlanta, for example).

Upgrading a Baseball team is an exercise in economics.

And I can't see how you justify paying $9M for Furcal when Cedeno stands a good chance to give you similar production at a tiny fraction of the cost. Let's say Cedeno can give us .280/.330/.380 (.710 OPS) as a rookie. I think that's a reasonable, conservative estimate. Compare that to Neifi! in 2005: .274/.298/.383 (.681 OPS). There's an upgrade right there -- and, yes, I know that Furcal is probably an upgrade over Cedeno. But how much of one? Furcal's been pretty consistently in the .284/.348/.429 (.777 OPS) range (that's his '05 numbers which are slightly higher than his career numbers). So, Furcal is likely worth 60-70 points of OPS more than Cedeno, and about 100 points better than Neifi!. Now, are those 60-70 points of OPS worth $9-10M per year over the inexpensive in-house option? Not to me. Bat Cedeno 8th and break him in.

Trade from your stength, upgrade your weaknesses, and, where practicable, make modest upgrades where you are about average. Our weakness is OBP and production from the OF. So, then, let's find players to upgrade said weakness. And there's one on the market -- Brian Giles. Offer him 3 for $36M with a club option for an additional year at $12M, and a buyout for $2M.

When I see Burnitz giving us .258/.322/.435 (.757 OPS) in RF whereas Giles provided .301/.423/.483 (.905 OPS) in a down year, I see a position of need. That's 150 points of OPS right there. Say you can sign Giles for $12M per. Burnitz made $4.5M in '05. Would you pay $7.5M for those 150 points? I would. Upgrading RF with Giles would be a less expensive upgrade than Furcal at SS, and the benefits are greater.

How about CF... we know that needs an upgrade. And we can do a similar calculation. Our CF's gave us .234/.281/.362 (.643 OPS). That's terrible. Any reasonable upgrade here is worth it, frankly. Getting Wilkerson, Bradley or Pierre would be better, tremendously better, than what we had in '05. That said, what would each of them cost in salary and players for a trade. We have a Rule V roster crunch coming on, and we know it. Using some of that player capital in trade would be a good use of them, rather than losing another Sisco. The salary differences among the 3 of them aren't really large enough, in my opinion, to merit a deep discussion of cost benefit analysis. And since we have no idea what each would cost in trade, all we can really look at is production.

Pierre and Wilkerson had down years. Bradley was injured. So, I'll use career numbers for comparison to be fair.

Bradley: .269/.350/.484 (.834 OPS), 28 years old for 2006 season
Pierre: .305/.355/.375 (.730 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season
Wilkerson: .256/.365/.452 (.817 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season

Bradley and Wilkerson both have significantly more power than Pierre, who is a much greater stolen base threat. We know Bradley is a headcase, and a problem in the club house. Theoretically speaking, Baker is supposed to fix this problem, and lets say he can. In that case, I'll take either Bradley or Wilkerson over Pierre.

Well thought out, brinoch. Get a little something for the pen and that's one hell of an offseason for the Cubs.

jmajew · November 16, 2005

OBP is not the only thing that makes a good leadoff or nuber 2 hitter. He needs a low number of strikeouts, a decent batting average in the 275, and a good OBP.
Of all the spots in the lineup, the leadoff spot is where a high strikeout total/low BA (at least when compared to the hitter's OBP) matter the least. The main drawback of high OBP/low AVG and high K hiiters is their comparative weakness at advancing runners. K's only really hurt you because they're less likely to advance a baserunner than another type of out. Similarly, the only time a walk is worse off than a single is when there are runners on base who could conceivably advance an extra base or two on a hit, whereas on a walk they may not advance a base at all. Basically, the moral of the story is that for a walk or strikeout to "hurt" your team there needs to be at least one runner on base. Leadoff hitters should have the fewest such opportunites (by far) of anyone in the lineup. Hence, strikeouts are not a big concern for a leadoff hitter, and neither is a low batting average. (Provided he can still maintain a good OBP by drawing lots of walks, that is.)

As far as the Cubs are concerned, I'd much rather have Bradley or Wilkerson than Pierre. Wilkerson provides a much more stable OBP than Pierre thanks to his walk rate, which tends to be much more consistent than the BABIP-dependent nature of Pierre's OBP. The same is mostly true of Bradley, and both men provide much more power than Pierre would, as well. As far as prospect costs go, Bradley would likely be the cheapest option of the three, though there's his reported attitude issues to consider.

I agree. I'd rather have Wilkerson or Bradley over Pierre. I just don't see Wilkerson being an ideal leadoff hitter. There is no doubt both would be 100 times better than what we had last year and improve this ballclub.

muntjack · November 16, 2005

Unfortunately, I believe the team's hitting philosophy is to be aggressive in any count.

I can easily see Wilkerson, Bradley or any hitter suffering a significant drop in OBP% after joining the cubs.

Diffusion · November 16, 2005

If Wilkerson is at all available, Hendry had better be all over it.

From August 11th onwards, Wilkerson was severly troubled by a sore right shoulder, requiring repeat cortisone shots. He hit just .231/.337/.372 in the final 39 games of the season. He also suffered right forearm and right hand injuries earlier in the season. And he was playing half his games in an extremely friendly pitcher's park, with a big chunk of the other half in the likes of Shea, Pro Player and Turner Field. There is a significant case then for Wilkerson's 2005 numbers hugely understating his actual ability. In other words, buy low. And remember Jim Bowden's obsession with toolsy outfielders!

That's sadly not to say that Wilkerson isn't a .250 hitter. He simply strikes out too much to sustain anything much above that at all. However, it is to say that Wilkerson in future can reasonably be expected to hit for his typical .370+ on-base percentage, and that he does possess significantly more power than he exhibited this last year. He is at the very least a 20 homer guy, if not 25+.

Wilkerson's defence is not a plus. He's not that fast and his range isn't particularly good. The fact that he possesses a very strong arm is useful, but nothing more than that. All in all, he's much more suited to a corner outfield spot, though he's probably still just about passable in centre. The trouble with playing him at an outfield corner is that he bat all of a sudden becomes a whole lot less valuable. The trouble with putting him in centre is that you are sacrificing quite a bit of defence, particularly compared to Corey Patterson. He's not a perfect ballplayer at all then. But I'd still put him in centre and bat him leadoff myself while forgiving him the catching the ball bit, if we could get him for a decent price.

Wilkerson is two years away from free agency, and is probably due a bit of a rise in arbitration, maybe to $4m+ a year (from $3.05m last year). The Nationals have Jose Guillen in RF, Nick Johnson at 1B and they seemingly think Ryan Church good enough to play both LF and CF. Besides Wilkerson, the Nationals' only other outfield options are Marlon Byrd (not very good at all, but Bowden seems to like him), Preston Wilson (almost certainly departing via FA), Brandon Watson (singles-hitting contact-first base-stealing CF, hit an empty .355 at AAA in 372 AB in 2005 aged 24, might be an option), Terrmel Sledge (coming off big hamstring injury, not that good anyway, Nats seem to know that since they were shopping him before he got injured) and Tyrell Godwin (hit an interesting .321/.387/.443 at AAA this year, but I doubt the Nats even consider him an option, he's 26 after all). And the CF market this winter is not particularly great. So they'd find it hard to replace Wilkerson.

All the same, there's talk out of Washington that the Nats are getting fed up with him striking out so much. Which is always good to hear, I guess, if it means we can take him on board at all, if not cheaply. But I doubt it. Hendry had better be all over it.

CubinNY · November 16, 2005

All the same, there's talk out of Washington that the Nats are getting fed up with him striking out so much.

It's a good thing the Cubs don't care about the K.

NorthsideAvenger · November 16, 2005

Wilkerson's defence is not a plus. He's not that fast and his range isn't particularly good. The fact that he possesses a very strong arm is useful, but nothing more than that. All in all, he's much more suited to a corner outfield spot, though he's probably still just about passable in centre. The trouble with playing him at an outfield corner is that he bat all of a sudden becomes a whole lot less valuable. The trouble with putting him in centre is that you are sacrificing quite a bit of defence, particularly compared to Corey Patterson. He's not a perfect ballplayer at all then. But I'd still put him in centre and bat him leadoff myself while forgiving him the catching the ball bit, if we could get him for a decent price.

This the the main reason, I am not that interested in acquiring Wilkerson. We have a very similar ballplayer in Matt Murton is, IMO, will be the better player in less then 2 yrs. I just don't like tweeners players like Wilkerson. Bat not good enough for a corner, but not adequately tolerable in CF on defense. This is the reason I am more interested in Pierre. I wouldn't mind Wilkerson, but only if they can't land anybody better.

SouthSideRyan · November 16, 2005

All the same, there's talk out of Washington that the Nats are getting fed up with him striking out so much.

It's a good thing the Cubs don't care about the K.

Well hold on, did the White Sox strike out a lot, gotta check with them first.

Diffusion · November 16, 2005

All the same, there's talk out of Washington that the Nats are getting fed up with him striking out so much.

It's a good thing the Cubs don't care about the K.

I know what you mean, but the Cubs have every right to care about the K. Everyone should care about the K. Every K taken on its own hurts production through the suppression of AVG, which in turn suppresses the all-important OBP and SLG numbers. The K is a bad thing. The K is always a bad thing.

However, the K is not always the product of sheer incompetence with the bat, it is often the by-product of an approach at the plate that brings more positives than the resulting K's bring negatives. Consider for instance players that work deep into counts and so draw lots of walks, and players that swing hard and so hit for a lot of power, and players that do both - all are as a result more susceptible to the K. And the K is still a bad thing. It's just the BB and the XBH etc are good things, and when you look at the totality of the picture, you're better off with a package of K, BB and XBH than you are with a hitter like Juan Pierre, whose OBP and SLG are suppressed not by K's, but by the fact he doesn't walk much and never hits for power.

It's this that the Cubs need to realise.

Regarding Pierre, his game is entirely based on his BABIP (from which his AVG takes its lead). And BABIP from day to day, month to month, year to year, gets itself all over the place, it's the thing that's seemingly most beyond the control of the hitter. So Pierre is much more likely to suffer up and down years than most other players, despite his talent never really changing - he's just a slap-happy punchless impatient hitter that can run fast but doesn't really field his position well, and that hasn't changed since he first made the majors, and unless he gets injured, that's not likely to change for a while yet either. What does change is just that BABIP -- .341 in 2001 (Coors), .312 in 2002 (Coors), .320 in 2003, .340 in 2004, .293 in 2005. In truth, with his speed, Pierre ought to find it pretty much impossible to hit much lower than .293 on balls in play, so in theory he shouldn't be any worse than 2005 for a while to come. And I don't see a huge amount stopping Pierre from having a year with a BABIP of .340/.350+ besides the relative number of PAs he gets a year relative to most other players (as a leadoff man that plays everyday, he's seeing way over 700 PAs a year), because players can get on rolls where everything drops in for hits and have the season end before the sample size catches up with their numbers. The trouble is that you really have no idea from year to year where that BABIP will go. If it's only .290, Pierre is practically useless. If it's .350, he's very useful. And if it's halfway in between, around his career average of .322 (which is right where you'd expect it to be, incidentally), he's merely okay as long as his defence doesn't deteriorate. Where will his BABIP be this year, then? He could be worth trading for, for one year only. He could be thoroughly useless. Who knows? That's the trouble with acquiring Pierre.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Diffusion

Diffusion · November 16, 2005

Wilkerson's defence is not a plus. He's not that fast and his range isn't particularly good. The fact that he possesses a very strong arm is useful, but nothing more than that. All in all, he's much more suited to a corner outfield spot, though he's probably still just about passable in centre. The trouble with playing him at an outfield corner is that he bat all of a sudden becomes a whole lot less valuable. The trouble with putting him in centre is that you are sacrificing quite a bit of defence, particularly compared to Corey Patterson. He's not a perfect ballplayer at all then. But I'd still put him in centre and bat him leadoff myself while forgiving him the catching the ball bit, if we could get him for a decent price.

This the the main reason, I am not that interested in acquiring Wilkerson. We have a very similar ballplayer in Matt Murton is, IMO, will be the better player in less then 2 yrs. I just don't like tweeners players like Wilkerson. Bat not good enough for a corner, but not adequately tolerable in CF on defense. This is the reason I am more interested in Pierre. I wouldn't mind Wilkerson, but only if they can't land anybody better.

I'd say Wilkerson's defence in CF is tolerable.

By the way, Pierre's defence is just as bad as Wilkerson's. Pierre can run fast, sure. Very fast. But don't mistake that with him having a lot of range. Pierre doesn't read the ball off the bat at all well, he takes too many ill-advised routes and his arm is atrocious. All in all, Pierre too is no better than tolerable out there.

Defence is not a reason to pick Pierre over Wilkerson.

Oh, and Pierre hardly has enough bat to play CF, yet alone an outfield corner.

BigbadB · November 16, 2005

OBP is not the only thing that makes a good leadoff or nuber 2 hitter. He needs a low number of strikeouts, a decent batting average in the 275, and a good OBP.
Of all the spots in the lineup, the leadoff spot is where a high strikeout total/low BA (at least when compared to the hitter's OBP) matter the least. The main drawback of high OBP/low AVG and high K hiiters is their comparative weakness at advancing runners. K's only really hurt you because they're less likely to advance a baserunner than another type of out. Similarly, the only time a walk is worse off than a single is when there are runners on base who could conceivably advance an extra base or two on a hit, whereas on a walk they may not advance a base at all. Basically, the moral of the story is that for a walk or strikeout to "hurt" your team there needs to be at least one runner on base. Leadoff hitters should have the fewest such opportunites (by far) of anyone in the lineup. Hence, strikeouts are not a big concern for a leadoff hitter, and neither is a low batting average. (Provided he can still maintain a good OBP by drawing lots of walks, that is.)

As far as the Cubs are concerned, I'd much rather have Bradley or Wilkerson than Pierre. Wilkerson provides a much more stable OBP than Pierre thanks to his walk rate, which tends to be much more consistent than the BABIP-dependent nature of Pierre's OBP. The same is mostly true of Bradley, and both men provide much more power than Pierre would, as well. As far as prospect costs go, Bradley would likely be the cheapest option of the three, though there's his reported attitude issues to consider.

I agree. I'd rather have Wilkerson or Bradley over Pierre. I just don't see Wilkerson being an ideal leadoff hitter. There is no doubt both would be 100 times better than what we had last year and improve this ballclub.

Mark Bellhorn and his 2002 season with the Cubs compares with Wilkerson.

Bellhorn hit .274/.389/.542/.931 as a lead off hitter for the Cubs in 2002. He had 2 steals in 4 attempts in less than half a season's worth of at bats. He scored 48 times in less than half a season of at bats. Assuming that a good scoring team will send their lead off hitter to the plate 700 times over the course of the season, the 48 runs scored translates to well over 130 runs scored for the season. Bellhorn also struck out 58 times in just 212 at bats.

I'd take production like that from my lead off hitter all day long.

The question becomes, would you rather have a guy with the potential to score 130+ runs with a .380+ OBP and very rarely steal a base, or do you want a prototypical lead off guy (Pierre) who scores 100 runs while supplying a .340ish OBP and stealing 60 bases?

Wilkerson scored more runs in 2004 than any season Pierre has scored runs. Most of Wilkerson's runs came as a lead off hitter (89).

Wilkerson's numbers as a lead off hitter look eerily similar to what Bellhorn did as a lead off hitter in 2002. High K's, low average, incredible OBP, high run scoring, good OPS.

Andy · November 16, 2005

Unfortunately, I believe the team's hitting philosophy is to be aggressive in any count.

I can easily see Wilkerson, Bradley or any hitter suffering a significant drop in OBP% after joining the cubs.

This thought worries me a lot...but you're probably right.

BigbadB · November 16, 2005

Unfortunately, I believe the team's hitting philosophy is to be aggressive in any count.

I can easily see Wilkerson, Bradley or any hitter suffering a significant drop in OBP% after joining the cubs.
This thought worries me a lot...but you're probably right.

This has to be considered. I've only heard the need for a speedy lead off hitter. I haven't heard a word about improving on base percentage at the top of the order.

Players love to hit. It has to be difficult to lay off pitches. Cudos to those who are patient. Would Pierre and Furcal absolutely love to become free swingers since that appears to be Cubs managements philosophy?

Blueheart05 · November 16, 2005

Juan Pierre is neither Hispanic nor French. Discuss.

I have news for you, with a last name of Pierre its safe to guess that French heritage is lurking in his past. It's pretty common in LA.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Blueheart05

UBlink · November 16, 2005

Unfortunately, I believe the team's hitting philosophy is to be aggressive in any count.

I can easily see Wilkerson, Bradley or any hitter suffering a significant drop in OBP% after joining the cubs.
This thought worries me a lot...but you're probably right.

This has to be considered. I've only heard the need for a speedy lead off hitter. I haven't heard a word about improving on base percentage at the top of the order.

Players love to hit. It has to be difficult to lay off pitches. Cudos to those who are patient. Would Pierre and Furcal absolutely love to become free swingers since that appears to be Cubs managements philosophy?

I seem to recall a thread last year showing statistically that players joining Dusty's Cubs had actually increased their walk rates. I can't think of how to search for it. Is my memory out of whack on that?

ESPN1K says Cubs trying to finish a deal for Pierre

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs