CubinNY

No. Just No. Ok. Why not?

Lately I've been thinking a lot about the importance of Lee in the lineup. I think his performance in terms of power is almost as big a question as Wood or Prior. One thing that Lee has been good at throughout his career is pitch selection. He's posted good to very good OBP thoughout most of his career. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to move him up to the 2nd slot behind Soriano. In my world Soriano would be hitting lower in the order, but that doesn't look like it will happen. Something like Soriano Lee Murton Aramis Barrett DeRosa CF/RF (I don't think JJ will be around to start the season) Izturis Thoughts?

Tim and tech people. Occasionally when I click on a thread I get this message: I don't know if someone is trying to hack information or what, but I thought I should let you know.

i just read that on yahoo, some of you thought we had it bad with Lillys contract The number of years is bad on the Zito contract, the pay is not. With Lilly the number of years isn't so bad but the pay is. Zito will probably perform better given the dimensions of Pac Bell. I really worry about Lilly in the NL Central ballparks. So you think that Zito is worth 18 million a year? That's not what I think. I really don't have anything to say about "worth". Worth is relative to the team's payroll and the player's contribution. I don't really know how to determine worth. That said, I'm not all that upset about the Lilly signing, but I worry about The Cubs signing fly ball pitchers.

i just read that on yahoo, some of you thought we had it bad with Lillys contract The number of years is bad on the Zito contract, the pay is not. With Lilly the number of years isn't so bad but the pay is. Zito will probably perform better given the dimensions of Pac Bell. I really worry about Lilly in the NL Central ballparks.

I believe you are correct Soul. Statistics show what was done. They are tangible proof that something happenend. However, the numbers don't "say" anything. It is the inferences that are made about what the numbers show that "say" things. Inferences are opinions based on the data. Two people could look at the same data and come to different conclusions. In science luck/chance is something to be gotten rid of. Usually this is done through randomization of the subject pool. If the scientist has done the right thing, luck plays a very little role in the outcome of the experiment. If the the variable under study is not found to be correlated with the results, the scientist doesn't say the results were do to luck. He/she says he/she doesn't know why it occured. Luck certainly plays a part in an individual baseball game or even a few games in a row. That is why the playoffs are such a crap shoot. But by the way some people talk about luck one would think that these guys/teams are all lottery winners. I seriously question some of these articles about the roll luck plays over the course of 162 games. Random variation and luck are not the same thing. It just means that the results are not likely to be repreated and the data are likely to regress to the mean, either for better or worse. But this is a closed system and without really looking up the data I'd say there is probably a large standard deviation in the data pool (in terms of BABIP). In other words there will always be outliers who overperform and underperform. The mean is just that. If an individual doesn't perform up to the mean or perfroms above the mean, it doens't necessarily say the person was lucky or unlucky. It says that they were better or worse than average.

Nah ... there'll be a rainout or two that won't be played cuz the Cubs will run away with the division :wink: Seriously, I agree with CubinNY. .500 is a realistic expectation for this team as presently constructed. But even with that over/under, somehow it seems more likely that they'll lose 90 than win 90 ... maybe it's a skewed distribution. Someone (I forget who) on NSBB did a position-by-position WARP analysis sometime back around the time Soriano was signed, and came up with a number close to .500 for the Cubs, which sounds about right to me. If I can find the thread I'll post a link - that might be the sort of argument or analysis jjgman wants to see? The biggest unknown - the biggest source of variance - is Prior IMO. The extremes between late 2003 and 2006 are extraordinary. Which Prior will show up when he finally takes the mound? (i.e. will he be healthy but I hate that cliche.) There's a big difference in expected wins on him alone. Yep. Prior and Wood are the big unkowns here. Right now I don't see the Cubs becoming an offensive juggernaut so if Prior can maintain an ERA in 3 range for 25 starts I will like the Cubs chances even better. If Wood can manage to pitch on consecutive days the majority of the time and be very good, the Cub could shorten a lot of games to six or seven innings. Those are huge ? in themselves. As I wrote earlier, I hope the Cubs can stay in contention until the trade deadline. If so, I will like the Cubs chances even more.

If not before... I agree. However, with Boras as his agent (if he is still z's agent) I'm thinking talks won't start until after Zito is signed. Just my 2 cents. Either way, I expect Hendry to get him signed. Hendry seems to be playing with monopoly money this year.

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole. I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion. I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact. I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this." Not one person in this thread has written an opinon without also saying why they think the way they do. As per ususal the poster is making acusations based on nothing but a fantastic sense of martyerdom. To me it's unwarrented to be making specific projections when the team is far from complete. JJ will likely be traded, for whom we don't know. They may bring in Cliff Floyd, but we don't know that yet. They haven't said what they plan to do with CF and we really have no idea what the pitching staff will look like. I fully expect one of the surplus young arms to be traded before the season begins. Again, I think the Cubs will be better than last year. How much better? I don't really know, but I think they have a realistic shot at being around .500.

Sine when is it pessimistic to project a team that won 66 games the previous year to be .500 the next year and have a shot to contend for the division?

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please. Analysis? What is your problem? You call pulling stats out of thin air analsyis? Where did you come up with those projections? On what are they based? Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel why don't you just use the commonly excepted projections like PECTOA? The Cubs were terrible last year. Terrible! They have upgreaded one positon on offense but will be getting Lee back. The pitching staff is no better, but they had some bad luck with injuries last year. I expect Guzman to come on strong given the time since his big injury. If they get any regression from last year's numbers from the middle of the order guys (of which, I'm including Soriano) they will not score significantly more runs than they did last year. If they don't score significanlty more runs they will need significantly better pitching than last year. I don't see it. So, in conclusion, the Cubs have a realistic shot at .500 and if things break right they could contend for the division. I don't need to make projections out of thin air to state my expectations.

Expectations? The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500. If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division. My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

Except that McCarthy has about 4 (5?) seasons left where his salary can be controlled either by the team or by arbitration. So unless Williams is planning for the 2011 payroll, I don't think that's why he did it. It doesn't matter if his salary is controlled or not, if he puts up decent numbers he will be approaching the $8-10 in just a few seasons. Also, it seems as though they were going to relegate him to the pen or AAA this year. This is an example of trading a guy while he has maximum value. McCarthy may have contributed this season, but what he brought in trade was potentially far better for the near and long term. Chances are, losing McCarthy will not cost the WS a World Series.

I don't think it matters. His numbers are among the best ever for a CFer. He's a lock first ballot HOF IMO.

I think I have an idea. They are preparing for the future. They turned one good pitcher who will be making a lot of money soon into two good pitchers who won't be making a lot of money as soon. IMO, KW is a very good GM and the Sox seem to have a long term plan based on financial wearwithall and baseball acumen. I really like the move, both strategically and tacticly. I wish the Cubs had some long term thinkers running things.

If Grace played in a different era he might have a chance. Don Mattingly and Grace are similar players and neither will make the HOF.

Floyd is an incredibly streaky hitter. I could see Lou sticking with him through the cold streaks. I have hope that Lou will know how to use Floyd correctly.

I believe they're generated based on the Bill James projections for next year. If James projects DeRosa keeping up last year's stats based on his switch from the AL to the mighty NLC, I guess I can understand that. I still don't want him hitting 3rd. Bill James' DeRosa line: 444 AB, 10 HR, .273/.333./.408 I'd take than line any day from DeRosa. However, Lee, Soriano and Aramis must come close to career averages.

In the immortal words of Nacny Kerrigan, "Why? Why? Why?"

I doubt it. His defensive reputation will probably be enough to make most fans accept his crappiness, especially if he keeps the K totals low and doesn't bitch about the fans being better in LA. Not counting Jones, the early favorite has to be Dempster. Although a slow start by either Ramirez or Soriano could give them a shot. I'd have to go with Marquis, if he starts slow, they'll give him hell. That contract and season last year will be a poor mix to start slowly. Good point. I forgot he was on the team. Denial is not a river in Africa.:-# I fully expect the same consitently inconsistent pitcher. Hopefully Lou has a quick hook.

Not a bad line. I like the WHIP.

Quality?

My guess is that Miller won't last the full season. In addition other pitchers will miss starts. I think there is enough room for everyone. After Z it's the quality I worry about, not the quantity. I think Guzman has a chance to take a spot, but I am going to assume that at least one of Marshall/Guzman/Marmol/Hill/Mateo will be traded. If I had to place a bet on it I would bet Guzman gets traded. He has the highest potential of the group. I hope this isn't the case though.

Wouldn't "sample size" issues be a problem for any projection though? I mean, if they are going to throw them out when comapring projections to actual performance what validity do they have (Unless the projection was for PA)? Because of DeRosa's lack of PAs/season over the corse of his career I think it would be hard to make an accurate projection. I think It would be far safer to look at his career numbers without the fancy math.

enlighten me.