Amazing_Grace

I agree, and if I wanted to know a player's value and could pick only one of the Baseball Encyclopedia stats to look at, I'd look at OBP. But at the same time, Nick Johnson was 4th in the NL with a .428 OBP, and Ryan Howard was 5th, at .425. But obviously Howard was far more productive. That's why I don't understand why some people have such a problem with things like VORP or WARP3. Yeah, they might not familiar to you, but no single traditional stat captures a player's value as fully as those two. If you just take a little time to learn what they mean, you gain a lot of knowledge. Do you have a link to a site that explains them and/or could you explain them here? I don't have any problem with VORP or WARP3, I've just never had them explained and the meaning of them isn't really all that clear to me. Also, OBP may be the most important stat, but it's not the only stat. Like I said in my original post, you also have to look at things like SLG also.

Thank you, and thanks for the correction. Since OBP is more predictive than SLG, it would suggest that some OPS formula that somehow places more value on OBP would possibly be even better. That's true, and is the weight that Sully is saying-it's not nearly as large as is sometimes reported (3 to 1, 4 to 1?-that's just crazy-the numbers do not indicate that OBP is nearly that important) but there should be a small weight added to OBP to make OPS even more predictive. It actually should be testable. You simply take OBP times X + SLG, varying X, and see how predictive the stat is to runs scored. At some point, the predictive value will max out, and will start to go down. When it does, you've found the factor that OBP should be multiplied times in a new OPS statistic. Of course, I'm not nearly good enough at math to actually do that... :lol:

In a rational world, those concerns would have begun the minute they named Looper as their #4 starter. Yeah, but this is St. Louis...there is still scattered talk of Rick Ankiel winning 15 games this year. Wow, I thought Ankiel was an outfielder now.

Thank you, and thanks for the correction. Since OBP is more predictive than SLG, it would suggest that some OPS formula that somehow places more value on OBP would possibly be even better.

I agree that most of the signs point to them keeping the Cubs, but I don't agree that removing the "Interim" from McDonoughs tag is one of them. It doesn't change much if they own the team, they're still free to replace him at their leisure. It's common practice in corporate acquisitions to prop your people up before the business is sold so as to give the people who used to work for you either a) more job security under the new owner, or b) grounds to demand more compensation in the event that the new owner decides to put his own people in. They could simply be trying to take care of McDonough in the event they do sell the team by giving him that title, which shouldn't have anything other than a negligible impact )if that, especially considering the demand) on the ultimate selling price of the team. You could be right, never thought of it that way.

I'm quoting you, but I'll reference everyone. Sure, OPS is a flawed stat, but so are all the others-OPS still is the best indicator of runs scored out there. Sure, it's not complete, but shouldn't it still be held in high regard for how predictive it is? I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I think OBP is actually more predictive of runs scored. I think someone on this board calculated it a while back, that if you look at OPS, OBP, and SLG, OBP ends up being the best predictor of the three in runs scored. I don't remember enough of my stats classes to calculate it myself. Anyone else remember that thread? Nah, it was actually found that OPS was much better-I'll try to find that thread though. Ah, it was a while ago. Does the site have a search feature?

I'm quoting you, but I'll reference everyone. Sure, OPS is a flawed stat, but so are all the others-OPS still is the best indicator of runs scored out there. Sure, it's not complete, but shouldn't it still be held in high regard for how predictive it is? I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I think OBP is actually more predictive of runs scored. I think someone on this board calculated it a while back, that if you look at OPS, OBP, and SLG, OBP ends up being the best predictor of the three in runs scored. I don't remember enough of my stats classes to calculate it myself. Anyone else remember that thread?

I like the newer stats. To me, OBP is the single greatest measurement of a hitter's ability because it records the outcome of the most important part of the game, the individual battle between hitter and pitcher. OBP basically is how often, as a hitter, you win that battle. The more often you beat the pitcher as an offense, the better you're going to be. I also like SLG, P/PA, K/BB to tell me other things about what kind of hitter the hitter is. About the only traditional stat I find to have any value is AVG, as it's still a good way to see how good a hitter is at getting a hit, and whether it is consistent year to year will say a lot about whether a hitter is lucky or good. I'd like to see more sites carry peripheral stats like BABIP, LD%, and such because you can get even more in-depth into how good a hitter a player is vs. how lucky they are. I think OPS is a flawed stat because it overvalues SLG vs. OBP, but it's alright as a quick and dirty way to compare two players. On the pitching side, I like OBP against and WHIP to evaluate pitchers. OBP against for the same reason as I like it on offense, and WHIP because it basically measures the same thing on a per inning basis and is a lot easier to look at to compare players. I must confess I don't know how ERA+ is calculated but would like to. I don't know a lot about some of the really new stats like WARP, VORP, and I don't know anything about defensive stats. If someone has links to pages that explain them, that would be cool.

I'd love to see Cuban own the Cubs because he obviously cares more about winning than making money in pro sports, and because he's about as far from a traditional baseball guy as you can get. If Cuban bought the team, I predict you'd see payroll climb to close to where Boston's is, and a younger GM brought in to push some new ideas. I doubt he'd fire Piniella, at least not right away. After all, he stuck with Don Nelson all those years in Dallas. I doubt Hendry would last long, as almost every owner wants to bring in their own GM. McDonough might actually survive because Cuban is a busy enough guy that he probably wouldn't take on the job of team president directly. That said, I doubt this happens. Everything points to the Trib keeping the Cubs: the recapitalization talk, the removing of McDonough's interim tag. It certainly seems like they are planning on having the Cubs for a while longer. The Cubs and WGN are so intertwined it would be difficult to sell one and not the other as well; after all, this is how the Trib has been hiding the profits the Cubs make from MLB and the public for a good long while. I don't buy that the other owners would block Cuban, especially if he's essentially the only choice, which is likely since he's the guy that would almost certainly well overpay for the franchise. If Cuban, or anyone, bought the Cubs, the other owners would have to weigh the benefits, a guy paying too much for a team and inflating team values, getting the Cubs away from WGN and freeing up all those profit sharing dollars that the new owner won't be able to hide, vs. the annoyance of dealing with one eccentric. There could also be repercussions. Basically if you block a sale of a team, you've pissed off both the buyer and the seller and you won't be getting any favors next time you try to sell your team.

I can't see the Padres being able to get out of this gracefully, and I don't blame Walker for being upset. The Padres, if they do this, are really undermining the spirit of, if not the letter of, the arbritration process. On a more selfish note, I'd love to see Walker get an invite to Cubs camp and get that 4M to play supersub for the Cubs. Wouldn't that be an awesome bench, with Theriot, Walker, Floyd, and Ward?

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/274449,271SPT8.article This most likely means that the Trib has decided they're not going to sell the Cubs, or they're not going to sell the Cubs in the next year. The best reason to leave the interim tag on a guy is if you're not sure about the future of the organization, and if they've decided the Cubs organization will remain more or less intact, it makes sense to get rid of the interim tag so he can have more credibility and authority with everyone in the organization.

He's feeling lucky that he possibly has a case for getting out of the contract. If only there would be a story about Jason Marquis using steroids...

Blah, I wonder what problem the baseball world has with Santo? There are a lot of less deserving players in the HOF. I don't get it.

It will probably never be definitively proven Bonds used steroids, but almost any sane person will conclude from the obvious body of evidence that he did use steroids of some kind.

If Floyd puts up a .900 OPS in LF as he has many times in his career, I won't complain too loudly if he starts 125 or more ballgames. If he's starting every day with an OPS anywhere under .850, I won't be real happy because at that rate, it's not worth taking ABs away from Murton. I think a lot of Murton's ABs will come in RF as Jones, not Floyd, is the guy that really needs to sit against lefties. There are 322 starts in the outfield. I can see Floyd getting around 100, almost all in left, with Murton getting about 120 evenly split between left and right, and Jones getting about 100 starts as well. It all depends on Piniella and how he balances performance vs. keeping his players happy, and of course, who actually is performing to begin with.

The nation ain't buying it. Prior will have to start 25+ games this year before people start believing again. I certainly won't buy it after the Cubs decided to push back Prior's start for once and then decided, the next day no less, that they don't need to push back his start after all. There's too much history with this organization and this player for me not to be suspicious. If the Cubs get 10 starts out of Prior, I'll be surprised. If he starts 25 games, I'll be stunned. I can understand feeling sort of jaded but I don't understand the idea that the Cubs are hiding something. All reports are that he's pitching and looking good which is a far cry from what went on under Dusty's watch; the back field pitching shrouded from the media... There's new onfield management that has no ties to the previous group. Do you really think JH is telling Piniella or Rothschild to deceive the public? Or that JMcD is pulling the strings from Chicago? I guess anything is possible but it seems highly unlikely. If the Cubs were going to pull something to trick the fans, they would have announced Prior's pitching date just before regular season tickets went on sale and then balked on starting him... You were suspicious when they planned to hold Prior back a start (and given his history it's warranted). However, I don't understand being against having him pitch on schedule. Which way is it? As for Prior's number of starts, he made 30 in 2003, 21 in 2004, 27 in 2005, and 9 last season. So he's averaging only a bit over 21 starts in his full seasons. That's concerning but if he truly is healthy he should blow by 10 starts... I can't blame you for taking a wait-and-see approach but there is room for optimism. He didn't throw off a mound at all last ST nor did he make a start. That's an improvement. For the record, I don't believe it's very likely the Cubs are deliberately misleading fans or trying to play up Prior's status to sell tickets or anything so nefarious as that. There just aren't a lot of people that just do nefarious things for personal or organizational gain. There are some, to be sure, and it's possible that things are being deliberately manipulated, but I don't think that's likely. I'm also not a coach and have no idea whether Prior should pitch or not. Incompetence is a great deal more common than bad intentions in this world, and I think it's far more likely the Cubs organization simply does an awful job of handling their public relations and controlling what stories go out when and keeping organization members on the same page with regards to important PR issues. As a fan, I resent being told one thing by the organization one day and something else the next, because when that happens, it makes me think; well, if they were mistaken on the first thing they said, why should I trust that this second thing is any more accurate than the first thing? Whether it's because they allow reporters too much access and some coach says something to a reporter that they oughtn't, or that they make snap decisions then change their minds later or whatever. You can't say we'll do this today, and say, nope we'll do the opposite tomorrow, and expect to have any credibility whatsoever. That's really all my issue is. I don't dislike Prior. I dislike the way the Cubs have handled the Prior injury news, and the way they seem to change their minds all the time. I wish the Cubs would get all their ducks in a row when they speak to the media, and try to keep their stories straight. I'm skeptical about Prior because guys don't just routinely come back from the kind of injury histories to the same level they were at before they were injured. I don't think it's very reasonable for people to expect Prior to pitch like he did in 2003, probably ever again. It's not impossible, but it's not likely either. I'd gladly take Prior's 2005 line, especially if he can stay healthy for the postseason.

A team like the Marlins has to hit all cylinders at the right moment for them to win. The Cleveland Indians did it once as well. The Indians might be on their way again this year. If a few prospects don't pan out, repeat the process without the big win, which is what I think Pittsburgh does. They counted on JR House, JJ Davis, a couple of other guys I may have forgotten about and guys added like Bay and Oliver Perez, and they try to win with that group. If they don't make it, they trade off the expensive parts (Kendall, Giles, etc...) and start all over again. Develop and trade for a bunch of talent that will all gel at the right moment. Tear it down and repeat the process. That's basically the problem. Teams have to rebuild for 3 or 4 years and have everything go right just to try to have enough players develop at the same time so they have a 1 or 2 year window to contend. The situation gets worse every year as the gap between high and low payroll teams widens and more teams are forced to give up signing first-tier players entirely.

The nation ain't buying it. Prior will have to start 25+ games this year before people start believing again. I certainly won't buy it after the Cubs decided to push back Prior's start for once and then decided, the next day no less, that they don't need to push back his start after all. There's too much history with this organization and this player for me not to be suspicious. If the Cubs get 10 starts out of Prior, I'll be surprised. If he starts 25 games, I'll be stunned.

I hope it didn't contribute at all. Fan and press reactions and expectations should not even remotely be a factor in deciding how quickly an injured player returns. I can't help but be suspicious there's still something going on with Prior after the conflicting announcements recently. I just do not trust the Cubs when it comes to dealing with injured players.

A Major League caliber ballplayer ought to be able to put the ball in play with 2 strikes rather than striking out, and they ought to be able to be patient, work the count, and wait for good pitches to drive as well. These two are not mutually exclusive. Dusty just seemed to think so.

Isn't that already the case? Aren't teams like the D-Rays, Royals, Pirates just basically farming up players for other teams to eventually pluck off their rosters? It's too bad they can't do it like the Marlins do. True, but the Marlins small-market tactics have only worked for 1 title. I think you have to count the 1997 title as really more of a big-market type strategy-they didn't go with what they currently do until after 97, and they've had 1 playoff appearance and one title since then-so they've been successful, but not that successful. I agree but they were more competitive than those teams mentioned in 2006. I think they'll be a force to reckon with if they continue along this path and make the right moves. I think "anomalies" like the small market Marlins winning in 03 are only possible because the bulk of MLB teams are decidedly mediocre, enabling a well run team to beat them regularly with a marginally smaller payroll. If, instead of 5 teams with 100M+ payrolls and 5 with under 50M, you have 10-15 of each, I think the situation becomes worse for the teams on the lower end. Also, it's worth noting the Cubs will be team #6 over the 100M dollar mark this year, and the Dodgers are sometimes over 100, they were close last year.

haha, I didn't realize I was the first. It's just kind of a habit. You're right of course :lol:

Isn't that already the case? Aren't teams like the D-Rays, Royals, Pirates just basically farming up players for other teams to eventually pluck off their rosters? To an extent, yeah, it already is, but right now there are only 4 or 5 teams that would qualify. You still have a "middle class" in baseball of teams in the 50-80M payroll range. I think that if things continue as they are, that class of teams will eventually go away, with teams choosing financially to either spend what it takes to be competitive or dropping the bottom out of payroll entirely and trying to break even by cost cutting.

Me too. He's Bruce Miles' comments about Cotts as an early standout: It certainly seems that regardless of what happens with Prior, the Cubs have plenty of options in their starting rotation this year. We could do worse than Cotts/Guzman as a fifth starter.

Baltimore isn't a whole lot better as a team, but their problem is that their pitching stinks. Fortunately for them, fans like offense so they're not in as bad shape as Washington. Baltimore's bigger problem is that they're in the AL East, which is all but unwinnable unless you're Boston or NY, and basically kills your chances at a wild card also. I feel bad for the teams in that division. They basically go into every season knowing their only chance to win a WS is to have one of the 150M+ payroll teams fall completely apart.