Phil Rogers' Latest

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

He also doesn't have a big long-term contract or require you to take on Mike Lowell. Better player doesn't necessarily mean that he will require more in a trade. There are plenty of other factors that go into a player's "worth".

It also seems to me that teams don't give up elite prospects for a guy who will be a free agent after the season.

BTW, Lowell isn't a bum, and I'd look for a big year in Fenway for him.

 

I agree on the Lowell part.

[CuseCubFan69]

It seems to me that of all the reporters, columnists and radio guys, Phil Rogers is the least reliable and with the fewest contacts within the Cubs. Juan Pierre is not going to command elite prospects. He is not Carlos Delgado or Josh Beckett. Rogers speculates and seems to be very lazy in his columns. Just my opinion after reading his columns for years.

 

He also doesn't have a big long-term contract or require you to take on Mike Lowell. Better player doesn't necessarily mean that he will require more in a trade. There are plenty of other factors that go into a player's "worth".

It also seems to me that teams don't give up elite prospects for a guy who will be a free agent after the season.

BTW, Lowell isn't a bum, and I'd look for a big year in Fenway for him.

 

I agree on the Lowell part.

 

Me too. 25/90/280

[Jehrico]

Damon's defense has been in a slide for several years now. His Zone Rating in 2001 was .935, and it has declined since, coming in at .910, .906, .879, and .874. That's a trend that can be expected to continue. Pierre, historically, isn't as good. However, he posted a .884 last year. The year before that, he was hobbled by leg problems (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that resulted in a .848. His ZR went up each year at Colorado, took a hit when he moved to ProPlayer stadium, and had he had a normal '04, would have progressed while with the Marlins. His numbers seem to be improving, while Damon's have gotten steadily worse. He passed Damon last year, and I expect the gap to widen. My belief that Pierre's a better CFer extends beyond the ridiculous notion that he is "fast and athletic," but rather, it's based on Damon's precipitous decline in the outfield. If you follow trends, Damon's numbers suggest he's going to be a scary-bad outfielder in the very near future.

 

Yes, because Zone Rating is a really reliable defensive metric. According to Zone Rating, in 2005, looking just at centre fielders, Jim Edmonds and Juan Pierre were just about defensive equals, Mark Kotsay was worse than Bernie Williams, and Andruw Jones ranked in the lowest quartile.

 

Like it or not, it is reliable to show a trend in a player's performance, provided he's on the same team. Stadium, team, quality of a pitchers staff, etc, can have impacts on Zone Rating. Damon's numbers have declined every year in Boston, there's no reason to expect improvement from him next year, or even holding even.

 

I don't dispute that there's been something of a decline in Damon's Zone Rating numbers, and indeed I don't dispute that there's been a decline in Damon's defence. He has lost a few steps of pace over the years, but the biggest factor was definately the collision with Damian Jackson in the 2003 postseason, which by his own confession still affects him today - he suffers from headaches, it's possible I'd suppose that his brain doesn't function quite as well as it used to in some ways, ways that perhaps affected his centre field play, and he's also maybe slightly more cautious in the field, perhaps just subconciously.

 

Let's suppose for a moment I put any stock in Johnny Damon's Zone Rating, or any other defensive metrics. I don't think that a single 4 point decline (from .910 to .906) can be regarded as indicative of anything whatsoever given the enormous natural year-to-year statistical variations that are possible. For the exact same reasons, I don't think that a single 5 point decline (from .879 to .874) means anything either. And I don't think that two 4/5 point declines in three years is that significant, because it's improbable to anywhere near the extent that you could only attribute it to decline.

 

No, the big problem for Damon, in terms of Zone Rating, still pretending that I put a great deal of value in it, is that after suffering the collision he then suffered a single 27 point decline, one that he showed little sign of significantly reversing in 2005. As such, though it's still too early to say, it looks as though his defence may have suffered permanently as a result of that collision in terms of Zone Rating. That's an observation that simply watching him play bears out to some extent.

 

None of this validates any part of your theorising though. Your position that Damon cannot reasonably be expected to even hold his own in terms of defence as measured by Zone Rating next year is completely untenable, seeing firstly as you've based that conclusion on a statistical trend that you simply cannot say exists at this stage, secondly as year-to-year statistical variation works both ways, up and down, and thirdly because I suppose it's possible that Damon may with time overcome the collision. The brain's a complicated thing, and I don't understand it. If anyone else here does, please opine.

 

Finally, the fact that Damon has suffered a one-off decline, or is suffering a gradual decline, which may be the case but right now is probably the less likely of the two possible explanations, doesn't necessarily mean that he's worse than Pierre at this stage. I can say quite definitively, and I did before, that Damon is still comfortably a better defender than Pierre, and that Damon is still above-average defensively at his position. I don't think it's necessary for me to run through the player's defensive skillsets again to explain why I think that that's the case, and I think my point about the comparative value of Zone Rating was well enough made in my last post that I don't need to repeat it.

 

Close your eyes and ignore the trend all you want, he's still gone from .935 to .874 without any spikes. That's a decline, no matter if a couple of those year-to-year gaps are negligible declines. It's still a downward trend that has several years behind it to show it's not a fluke. By your own admission he's lost a step or two and isn't the same. I don't know why anyone's sticking up for Damon's defense. Murton isn't the strongest defender in left. Depending on who ends up anchoring right, having a subpar center fielder could end up hurting us if both corners are below average.

[oldcubsfan]

Jehrico you are being kind describing Murton's defense. He has one of the worst arms I've ever seen from left, but hopefully his bat makes up for it.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Jehrico you are being kind describing Murton's defense. He has one of the worst arms I've ever seen from left, but hopefully his bat makes up for it.

 

Arm strength is only one component of defense. LF is one of the positions that can most tolerate that deficiency. Murton's range is pretty good and his instinct are solid. After watching Dubois, he looks like a gold glover, lol.

[oldcubsfan]

Jehrico you are being kind describing Murton's defense. He has one of the worst arms I've ever seen from left, but hopefully his bat makes up for it.

 

Arm strength is only one component of defense. LF is one of the positions that can most tolerate that deficiency. Murton's range is pretty good and his instinct are solid. After watching Dubois, he looks like a gold glover, lol.

Actually, I thought they were pretty similar. Obviously, it's the bat.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Jehrico you are being kind describing Murton's defense. He has one of the worst arms I've ever seen from left, but hopefully his bat makes up for it.

 

Arm strength is only one component of defense. LF is one of the positions that can most tolerate that deficiency. Murton's range is pretty good and his instinct are solid. After watching Dubois, he looks like a gold glover, lol.

Actually, I thought they were pretty similar. Obviously, it's the bat.

 

Dubois looked lost out there, hunting for every fly ball. I saw Murton take a couple bad jumps and one ill advised dive, but other than that, he looked to be tracking the ball very well. Every time I saw him in Wrigley live he played the ball well. Gerut was awesome defensively (just thought i'd throw that in there, lol). His arm is fairly weak.

 

I agree about his bat. That's the deciding factor. At worst, he's a back of the lineup guy with plate discipline and little power. At best, he's going to be an absolute stud next year, especially since the league hasn't seen a whole lot of him.

[oldcubsfan]

Jehrico you are being kind describing Murton's defense. He has one of the worst arms I've ever seen from left, but hopefully his bat makes up for it.

 

Arm strength is only one component of defense. LF is one of the positions that can most tolerate that deficiency. Murton's range is pretty good and his instinct are solid. After watching Dubois, he looks like a gold glover, lol.

Actually, I thought they were pretty similar. Obviously, it's the bat.

[Jehrico]

Jehrico you are being kind describing Murton's defense. He has one of the worst arms I've ever seen from left, but hopefully his bat makes up for it.

 

Arm strength is only one component of defense. LF is one of the positions that can most tolerate that deficiency. Murton's range is pretty good and his instinct are solid. After watching Dubois, he looks like a gold glover, lol.

Actually, I thought they were pretty similar. Obviously, it's the bat.

 

Dubois looked lost out there, hunting for every fly ball. I saw Murton take a couple bad jumps and one ill advised dive, but other than that, he looked to be tracking the ball very well. Every time I saw him in Wrigley live he played the ball well. Gerut was awesome defensively (just thought i'd throw that in there, lol). His arm is fairly weak.

 

I agree about his bat. That's the deciding factor. At worst, he's a back of the lineup guy with plate discipline and little power. At best, he's going to be an absolute stud next year, especially since the league hasn't seen a whole lot of him.

 

At best, I think he could be the next Kirby Puckett.

[Diffusion]

Close your eyes and ignore the trend all you want, he's still gone from .935 to .874 without any spikes. That's a decline, no matter if a couple of those year-to-year gaps are negligible declines. It's still a downward trend that has several years behind it to show it's not a fluke.

 

The trouble is that my eyes are actually wide open and you're not able to get a half-baked argument past me. The .935 is a very nice attempt on your part to shift the goalposts, because all of a sudden you're referencing a time in Damon's career that we haven't previously discussed, and with good reason - he was working in a completely different ballpark, with completely different corner outfielders, with a completely different pitching staff, all factors that you yourself have in this thread previously admitted can have impacts on Zone Rating, your flawed defensive metric of choice. Meanwhile, I've made it perfectly clear that there has been a decline in Damon's defence, that just does happen to be reflected in Zone Rating, one that I believe is probably best explained by the one-off collision with Damian Jackson he had in October 2003.

 

At this stage there is simply not enough statistical evidence to suggest that a trend of gradual decline exists. It may well exist. I'm certainly not saying it doesn't. I'm just saying that you can't really say at this stage. Suppose that Damon had registered a .910 Zone Rating in 2002, .906 in 2003, .909 in 2004, .904 in 2005. There you have three movements, the first a -4 and the third a -5. Would you argue that Damon was in gradual decline based on those numbers? Of course you wouldn't. But the only fundamental difference between that hypothetical example and the actual scenario with Damon's Zone Rating is the second movement, a difference of 30 points. If it's one movement that's making all the difference, how can you possibly define it as a trend?

 

By your own admission he's lost a step or two and isn't the same. I don't know why anyone's sticking up for Damon's defense.

 

Because it's an awful lot better still than Juan Pierre's defence, that's why. That was the basis of your argument, which isn't going to get a free pass just because you pluck an unreliable defensive metric out of the air, start talking about trends in it that aren't at all established and then accuse other people of burying their heads in the sand.

[Jehrico]

First off, you can cut out the condescending crap. I admit, I'm guilty for dropping to your level in the last post with the eyes closed comment, I won't do it again.

 

Second, ZR is unreliable according to who, you? There are no perfect defensive stats, and ZR is far from perfect, but so is just about any other metric. Just because you think it's worthless doesn't mean it is.

 

Third, forigve me for throwing the .945 in there...I went back one year too far. His ZR last year was considerably lower than when he first got to Boston, and there have been no signs of improvement. I don't care if the collision is the source of his problems, the fact is, he's digressed. You're saying he's better than Pierre because of his past performances, which I say are not likely to be predictive of his future performances. He wasn't any better than Pierre last year, there's nothing to support he was. If you think I'm wrong, and you wanna attack me for using ZR, then paint me a picture with an infallible metric that shows me I'm wrong. All you've done is condescend without offering anything to support your own statement.

[Diffusion]

There are no perfect defensive stats, and ZR is far from perfect, but so is just about any other metric.

 

So why use metrics at all then?

 

ZR is unreliable according to who, you? Just because you think it's worthless doesn't mean it is.

 

Yes, according to me. What other terms do you use for a metric that thinks Andruw Jones has no range and that thinks Mark Kotsay showed less range than Bernie Williams in 2005? "Valuable"? "Of worth"? "Reliable"?

 

His ZR last year was considerably lower than when he first got to Boston, and there have been no signs of improvement.

 

And this could not be explained by the fact that CF in Boston is amongst the hardest to play?

 

I don't care if the collision is the source of his problems, the fact is, he's digressed.

 

I digress, but the word you're looking for is "regressed". And you should care. Your point was that Damon is in a state of steady decline that can be expected to continue. If Damon's decline can be linked to a one-off incident, that obviously undermines that argument.

 

You're saying he's better than Pierre because of his past performances, which I say are not likely to be predictive of his future performances.

 

Because you think there's a statistical trend of decline. A statistical trend of decline that just so happens to be very contestable.

 

He wasn't any better than Pierre last year, there's nothing to support he was.

 

I think you mean there's nothing in the particular statistic(s) that you're looking at. Sadly, a number of other statistics, all for the most part as unreliable as the one(s) you're looking at, if not a bit more or a bit less, disagree...

 

For instance, Juan Pierre was -6 FRAA last year, Johnny Damon just -5. Pierre had a Rate2 of 97 last year, Damon too. Damon had 5.7 fielding win shares. Pierre had a mere 2.9. Damon had a .985 fielding percentage, 2.93 Range Factor, Pierre was at .988 and 2.21. UZR used to absolutely hate Pierre and rate him as one of the worst in baseball, but recent numbers aren't available. Probabilistic Model of Range put Damon reasonably comfortably ahead of Pierre in 2004 at least. There are numerous other attempts at defensive statistics, and so on and so on. Nothing to suggest that Pierre wasn't better? Hmm.

 

Oh, and then you've got any assessment of the players from actually watching them play that disagrees. Not that you'd put any value in that, because you just think I'm making it all up about Pierre taking rubbish routes and reading balls badly just for the fun of it, all because I secretly love Johnny Damon and want the Cubs to really, really sign him. Ha, yeh right.

 

If you think I'm wrong, and you wanna attack me for using ZR, then paint me a picture with an infallible metric that shows me I'm wrong.

 

Except there's no such thing as an infallible defensive metric. That's exactly the problem. That's why it's kind of instructive to try watching the players play defence.

 

All you've done is condescend without offering anything to support your own statement.

 

Without anything statistical to support my statement, you mean. Just the way I like it when it comes to defence. I think my scouting report was more than detailed enough though. And strangely no one has seen fit to pick any holes in the scouting report. No, on the contrary, people have only commented on how they've seen the same traits.

[RockTheIvy]

http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/4715/newsyawn5op.jpg

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/4715/newsyawn5op.jpg

 

bedtime? :lol:

[AramisRamirez]

at this point i just want somebody. if its pierre, fine. if its furcal, fine. if its giles, fine. if its soriano, fine. just bring in somebody. im still laughing about that other thread that said $100M for furcal. lol. yeah a $100M.

[Outshined_One]

Jehrico you are being kind describing Murton's defense. He has one of the worst arms I've ever seen from left, but hopefully his bat makes up for it.

 

Arm strength is only one component of defense. LF is one of the positions that can most tolerate that deficiency. Murton's range is pretty good and his instinct are solid. After watching Dubois, he looks like a gold glover, lol.

Actually, I thought they were pretty similar. Obviously, it's the bat.

 

Dubois also had one of the best OF arms in the Cubs system.

 

That said, if the Cubs were willing to put up with Moises Alou out in LF, they can tolerate anyone in LF.

[Bluescale]

at this point i just want somebody. if its pierre, fine. if its furcal, fine. if its giles, fine. if its soriano, fine.

 

Please, no! Soriano and his patehtic OBP should be nowhere near this team. I'm fairly certain Dusty would throw him at the top of the order, simply because he's fast. He'd fit in well with the Dusty/Hendry way of thinking, since he can't stand to take a base on balls...

[shnsajax]

Our budget isn't infinite. Overpaying in one area means we can't acquire talent in another area. For example, overspending in the bullpen when we have cheap alternatives lessens the amount we have to spend on SS, OF, and another starter. There's usually a fairly sizable drop in talent for outfielders for a couple million a season.

 

We're the Cubs not the Royals.

 

A budget is a budget. What do you have a degree in? (if you don't mind my asking)

 

the main problem is everyone assumes we know what the budget is and how much we have to spend. We also assume we have a very strict budget. Has anyone seen the tribune say over the past couple of years we can only spend "X" much, or we must cut payroll to get below budget.

 

If one or two million is standing between us getting a key player and us not getting him why are we that concerned. This is not going to prevent us from being able to make a big move.

[imb]

Our budget isn't infinite. Overpaying in one area means we can't acquire talent in another area. For example, overspending in the bullpen when we have cheap alternatives lessens the amount we have to spend on SS, OF, and another starter. There's usually a fairly sizable drop in talent for outfielders for a couple million a season.

 

We're the Cubs not the Royals.

 

A budget is a budget. What do you have a degree in? (if you don't mind my asking)

 

the main problem is everyone assumes we know what the budget is and how much we have to spend. We also assume we have a very strict budget. Has anyone seen the tribune say over the past couple of years we can only spend "X" much, or we must cut payroll to get below budget.

 

If one or two million is standing between us getting a key player and us not getting him why are we that concerned. This is not going to prevent us from being able to make a big move.

 

This is the thing though. Youre saying "hey, you dont know how much we have to spend, no one has said how much we have to spend! Dont complain about such and such" but then you say "if we need a few million to sign an impact guy, we'll do it!"

 

It cant be both ways, you cant call someone out for saying the first thing, and then you say the second thing, that's not how it works. You dont know that Hendry will say "oh jeez, i just gave old jacque jones 7 mil a season, and look, Vlad is out on the market. Oh well, what's another 3 mil! Bring on Vladdy Daddy". You dont know that Hendry would say that because it's not his money. He's not out there writing out a check to these dudes from his bank of america checking account, this is the Trib's money, and who's to say they are going to eff around. "Oh sure Jim, you put a clunker out there the last two seasons, and now all this money we're giving you isnt enough. Here's another 2 mil you big irresponsiblt coot, you".

 

We dont know, you cant say "you dont know how much we have to spend" and then say "we can spend a few more extra if we need to". Nobody knows, its a big mystery, it's D.B. Cooper's money here, it's a secret.