jjgman21

sorry to be uninformed, but who is Pagan and where did he come from?

I don't know, but for some reason his name stuck with me and I remembered this http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/springStats?team=chc&type=pitch&year=2004 Corey was in Cubs camp in 2004 and appeared in 11 games. obviously some scout is in love with him

I did some pipe dreaming over last weekend and plugged in the numbers for each players best year and optimistic numbers for Murton and Cedeno (not as optimistic as Bill James, though) into the baseballmusings calculator most of the best lineups under that scenerio had Cedeno hitting third.

yes. I read an article wrong. my mistake.

Leiber's ERA+ the three years before his torn labrum (nice work there Baylor) 2000 - 97 2001 - 111 2002 - 103 after 2004 - 104 2005 - 108 those guys both had torn labrum and missed entire seasons. I think that alone is indicative that Kerry's surgery was nowhere near as serious since he'll be back within 8-9 months

Ryne Sandberg's first full year 635 AB, 271/312/372 should've followed Philly's lead and shipped that guy out while we had the chance.

these early off days suck. not only because it means fewer off days later in the year, but also because it tempts Cubs management into making stupid decisions. I think they should go with a five man rotation from day one, all year long, and deviate only when necessary.

I think everyone here would be stoked if their corner outfielders reach .825 ops like Barrett did last two years. that goes for Cub, Card, Astro, and WhiteSox fans, three of whom would also be stoked if their centerfielders reached those numbers. of all players in baseball with 450+ plate appearances last year, Barrett ranked 58th in OPS. I don't play fantasy sports, so I don't completely understand it, but I have no idea why the 58th best hitter in all of baseball is ranked in the 300's

I wonder if and when his Astros teammates are going to get sick of the special treatment and clubhouse issues will surface in Houston. something tells me a 4+ ERA and the special treatment is an issue.

How do you figure? I've already shown you that Mabry is the better offensive player. You haven't shown me anything. You've just said what you think and haven't backed it up one bit. soccer10k, everybody here knows that I am skeptical of alot of the arguments the 'statheads' make, but Mabry is a much better hitter. just because Neifi gets more playing time doesn't mean he should have it. Neifi was released in August 2004. by your logic, doesn't that mean he doesn't deserve to be in the big leagues? Macias got nearly 200 plate apperances last year, he deserved zero. Felix Heredia still hangs on in the major leagues even though he sucked from day one. as Tiger stated, Mabry gets on base at a better clip and hits for more power. there's no denying it, and there's little denying those are the two most important aspects of offense in baseball.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but in your attempt to prove that the minor leagues weed out players who can't handle pressure, you appear to be doing exactly what you rail on others for doing , using anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. you want proof of other people's ghosts and ufos, but fail to provide proof of your own ghosts and ufos.

Exactly. And distraction does not always translate to tangible results. And from what we know, more often then not it does not translate to anything. What we have is conventional wisdome based on a logical belief but nothing that supports that it is so. For a guy to even make it to the majors he would have to be able to handle such situations with some level of success. A good baserunner will lul the pitcher into to thinking he is not going almost making him more comfortable. It is much easier to steal with a normal stretch then a slide step.kl;j the bolded part above is actually a bit of wisdom based on a logical belief but with nothing that supports that it is so, too. the entire notion that the minor league process weeds out those who are worse under pressure, is expected to be accepted, without any scientific evidence of whether this is or is not true. some how we are just supposed to accept that baseball players are different than every other profession in the world because there is a minor league process. there are people who have reached the top of every profession even though they don't perform well under pressure because they are extremely talented overall, but somehow baseball's minor leagues operate differently than the weeding out process in every other profession. I think we see evidence of some attrition by the stats guys in this area. Bill James admitted that there were problems with the way they were trying to measure clutch. and despite the notion that any good pitcher will be a good closer, we saw Depodesta give Gagne a huge contract, Epstein give Foulke a huge contract, and Beane trading for a proven closer three years in a row. I look at it this way. pitching is an activity of intense concentration. there is so much to think about in terms of what is the best pitch to throw in a given situation and it takes tremendous concentration to execute that pitch mechanically. anything that contributes to breaking some of that concentration is going to cause more mistakes and lead to better opportunities for the batter. a fast baserunner may not always result in tangible results in terms of better opportunities for the hitter, but it will rarely if ever result in worse opportunities. a lulled and therefore comfortable pitcher is presumably not a better pitcher. thus, the net effect will be a net gain in improved opportunities for the hitter.

Or injury prone players falling apart: Izzy, Carp, Spivey, etc. well I have some time on my hands tonight, so I think its time we started the annual 'digging through the stats to rationalize (one team is just as good as the other / one team is clearly better)' debate. I'm a cubs fan, and I am going to stick to my guns. in 2003 I argued the Cubs were just as good as the Cards, in 2004 I argued the Cubs were better than the Cards, and in 2005 I argued the Cubs were just as good as the Cards. this year, surprise surprise, I think the Cubs are just as good as the Cards. I think they will battle for the division. if luck were even the past couple of years, the races would have been alot closer. the Cards have been lucky. you can say that the Cards had injuries too last year so they were unlucky, but that doesn't dismiss the luck they had when the replacements for the injured performed far better than could have been predicted, or their entire staff doing as well or better than can be predicted. when supposing equal luck, and comparing what can be expected out of each team , the difference between the two teams is small. I don't think that anyone can disagree that the Cubs should see improvements in just about all aspects of the game. Not as much as all us Cubs fans would have liked, but improvement nonetheless. contrary to your belief that only the Cards pen will be worse, I believe a case can also be made that the Cards have gotten worse in just about all aspects of the game, except maybe defense where I think they will be better. first off, offense. let me start out by pointing this out. the Cards record last year: 38 games over .500. the Cards record last year when Larry Walker wasn't playing: 3 over .500. now I will concede that most of those games the Cards had Sanders too. but just because you will have Rolen back does not mean the Cards will be nearly as deep or consistent as they were last year. I went through the Cards offense month by month and found, even if the numbers showed the Cards did worse at several positions than they might have hoped (lf, rf, 3b) that every single month but September, the Cards were getting 800+ OPS out of at least 5 slots in the lineup. it was amazing how one guy would get hot and help carry the offense, and replacement players routinely came in and played as well as the regulars. now some of this is attributable to LaRussa and Jocketty, but in large part it is just plain luck April - Pujols/Rolen/Grudz/Edmonds/Sanders all over .800, Walker at .788 May - Eckstein/Pujols/Grudz/Edmonds/Sanders - Walker and Rolen are above 800, but both are injured. no worries, Mabry is well over 800 in 66 ABs June - Pujols/Sanders/Edmonds (64 ab)/Nunez (64 ab)/Walker (49 AB) - this months it's Seabols turn, over 800 in 41 abs. Taguchi and Molina have virtually full months play over 788. July - Pujols/Edmonds/Nunez/Walker (47 abs)/Sanders (25 abs) - Cards are in trouble because both their corner outfielders are down. no worries: Mabry/ J Rod/Luna replace with 44/42/18 abs over 800 August - Eckstein/Pujols/Taguchi/Edmonds/Grudz - Luna chips in with 49 abs over 800 Sept - Eckstein/Pujols/Edmonds/Walker (42)/J Rod (27)/Gall (19) now I know this doesn't tell the whole story, but it gives an idea of how consistent and deep the Cards lineup was. it's easy to predict the Cards to have three players consistently above 800 each month this year, but where are all these other red hot months going to come from this year? will Eckstein have three .835+ ops months to help carry the team? will Spivey have three .852+ months? will the Cards corner outfielders generate .788+ ops virtually every single month like they did last year, and often well above .900? not likely with that group. between lesser players, and the unlikelihood that every injury and slump will not disrupt the offense like last year, the Cards offense will probably not be anywhere near as good as it was. in other words, the suggestion that the scrap heaps that Jocketty brought in performing to the same level as last year is not unprecedented, but highly unlikely. the Cubs on the other hand broke down like this A - Burn/Lee/Aram/Neifi (68)/Dubois (26)/Walker (21) M - Aram/Lee/Barrett (66) J - Lee/Burn/Aram/Walk/Holla/ Hairston at 793 (37 ab) J - Aram/Lee/Barrett (73)/Murton (34)/Blanco (29) - Walker and Burn were above 790 in a full month of work. A - Lee/Walk/Neifi/Barrett (69)/Garciaparra (68)/Aram at 795 S - Garciaparra/Lee/Murton/Walker (69) I think the Cubs can expect above 800 production out of two positions each month of the year. it is not unreasonable to expect these changes: 2B - Cubs had 3, with Walker injured two months. expect 4 SS - Cubs had 3 (I'm counting Neifi's April here. he actually split time between SS and 2b in April) . expect 1 3B - a full year of Aram gives the Cubs 2 more CF - Cubs had none. expect 1 corner OF - - Cubs had 5 (counting Burnitz's 794), plus two hot half months out of Dubois and Murton. expect 7 C - Cubs had three. expect 4, based on this: Michael Barrett is the real deal. he had an OPS of .824 last year. without the most flookishly unlucky streak of hitting I have ever seen in my life in April, he's a .900 ops batter. (not sure where to get these stats, but compare his line drive % with his BABIP in April and you will see what I mean) And a side note: this is calculated accounting for Baker's bafoonary. proper management could get an extra month of 800 ops out of 2nd, SS, RF, and maybe LF. I think it is pretty clear that the Cards are not as deep and won't be as consistent, while the Cubs will be more consistent offensively and not as dependant on 3-4 to score runs. the Cards will still be better offensively, but the gap will close significantly. first, I don't think any informed people have said the Cardinals regressed the past two years. nobody thought the Cards would be bad in 2004. they were picked third because the Cubs and the Astros were predicted to be two of the best pitching staffs in the history of baseball, and for good reason. turned out, the Cards had five starters all perform better than they probably could have ever dreamed of. and few rational people thought the Cards had regressed in 2005. they got rid of their worst pitcher, looked to have Larry Walker for a full season, and a probably wash up the middle. other than that there were few changes. second, I know mine is somewhat arbitrary analysis, but it does show an aspect of how the Cards probably will regress. the conclusion is the same as all the "experts," all the biased people (like me), and most of the unbiased people. the Cards have significantly regressed offensively. in fact, I think only understandably biased people like yourself and the uninformed would say otherwise.

I know of one manager in all of baseball that juggles his rotation with any consistency simply for the sake of matchups. just because you are familiar with it, doesn't mean it is the norm.

If you love Wrigley, you would have loved Tiger Stadium too. It was a bit of a dump and in a terrible neighborhood, but had every once of baseball feel that Wrigley does inside, and the food was much better than Wrigley.

Are you talking about the mass resignation? I am talking about the mass resignation, that was quickly rescinded by most resigning umps, that was followed by the termination of 22 umps

oh will you come off of it. you're just as snide to me in our discussions, and you were chastised by the founder in this very thread for being snide. then you turn around and cry when someone is the same way to you? I think we've been talking past one another to an extent. I do not think that humans today are geneticly superior and CAN throw harder. it's not a question of whether they had the ability. it's a question of whether they actually DID throw harder and threw hard as consistently as pitchers do today, a question of whether ability was maximized. all one has to do is look at the pitching stats, ie innings pitched, complete games, strikeouts/9, walks, etc. to come up with some pretty damn convincing circumstantial evidence that there was no way in hell that pitchers in Cobbs era were throwing as hard as they are today.

I always get a chuckle out of the way Carpenter, even when he's cruising, has a "I wish this proctology exam was over" look on his face.

interesting. if only it were true AL - Lajoie, Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Knight, Oldring, Easterly, Murphy NL - Magee, Campbell, Hofman, Snodgrass, Wagner, Lobert, Bates, Devore, Konetchy, Schulte you didn't. it was a tool for illustration. so, good enough for Grover Cleveland Alexander, but not good enough for Z? I mean if Alexander can rack up 350+ innings year after year, according to you throwing full bore like Z does, there won't be adverse consequences? of course pitchers knew they had to pitch alot more innings back then, so they paced themselves. they would not have lasted if they didn't. throwing like Z does for 350+ would blow out his arm. had Alexander been throwing like Z does, he too would have blown out his arm. this is where your point about human bodies being human bodies makes sense. you also made another good point. pitchers blew their arms out after throwing so many innings, so alot of really good pitchers were replaced with lesser pitchers. a guy like Pedro Martinez would have lasted 5 years in the league back then with the workloads they put in. now, with lesser workload and the ability to always let it all hang out because of the lesser workload, he's dominated for a dozen years, with probably a few left in him. furthermore, modern medical science keeps great pitchers in the game longer. that alone keeps the level of pitching way up over what attrition did to pitchers back then. it's not silly. your notion of modern technology, hoards of coaches, nutrition, medicine, off season conditioning instead of working in a coal mine, etc etc. not making a difference is silly. how do you explain the rapid advancement in how fast women's softball pitchers throw. 10-15 mph faster than they did only 20 years ago, mostly due to mechanical changes. I have seen the improvement in velocity in my lifetime. in the 80's, 88-89 was an above average fastball (outside of Ryan and JR Richard). 91 was an impressive fastball. these days entire rosters of pitchers are 90+. in the 80's, a handful of pitchers hit 95. the 2004 Cubs had as many all by themselves. hitting on the other hand, always has been and always will be, primarily a matter of reflexes, something that cannot be appreciably improved upon by training, coaching, technology, etc. and yet his high strike out mark for a season was 114, a year he finished 5th in the league. you don't need 90+ to kill a guy with no helmet. you do however need 90+ to strikeout more than 8 per 9 innings, something that happened all of three times before 1953.

One factor about this though is in the olden days, pitchers would not only throw inside more but also throw at players more. I think Don Drysdale would be an example of that. If someone hit a homer vs. Drysdale, the next batter better watch out. There used to be an intimidation factor that is not the same now. So a player that throws the ball 95 mph but doesn't work inside could very well be less intimidating. I know what you're saying. I'm really not one that thinks today's players are better, but I think saying that yester years players were better is absurd. plus, we hear lot's of those kinds of stories, but consider http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HBP_p_career.shtml seems we've had alot of pitchers unafraid to come inside the past 20 years. furthermore, seems pitchers have pretty much gotten this message. the league leader in beanballs is appreciably higher in the 90's-00's than it was in the 70's-80's This argument could cut both ways. If you were playing in 1915 you were playing for the love of the game, not to make money. Even though modern players make far more money, it doesn't seem to translate into better fundamental play, in fact you can make the case that it's quite the opposite because stats often drive contracts. the only reason I brought that point up was to illustrate that baseball, no matter how good you were, was not always an option in the early decades of the 1900's, thus cutting down the talent pool. today, there are few misgivings. if you have an opportunity to play baseball, you take it, unless you're some kind of a genius or, as others have suggested, play another sport..... although the 'basketball and football now cut into the talent pool' argument is lost on me considering how huge college football was back then and the popularity of other sports, especially boxing and track and field, not to mention those little things called World War I and World War II that severely cut into the talent pool. today, you get your signing bonus, a few grand minimum, and deal with making $850/month with all expenses paid for one year. usually that puts you above the average 18 year old anyway. if you make it to your second year, you're making more than everone you graduated with, other than those born with silver spoons in their mouths. so really, it only cuts one way. playing baseball these days is a wise financial choice. back then, it was often considered a foolhearty gamble.

What, you think pitchers back then threw 80mph or something? When I was in high school, I faced lanky redneck kids who never touched a weight in their lives who could throw 90mph or higher. A human body is a human body, training or no training. There are high schoolers all across the country who have no problem hitting at least 90mph, and they have no serious training at all. Some people can pitch that hard naturally and some can't. Just like some people are naturally fast and others aren't. Here are some examples of 300+ inning pitchers who you've probably actually seen film of and can testify that they didn't just lob the ball up there Bob Feller - 1946 - 371 ip, 1941 - 343 ip Steve Carlton - 1972 - 346 ip Gaylord Perry - 1973 - 344 ip, 1972 - 342 ip, 1970 - 328 ip Denn McClain - 1968 - 338 ip Sandy Koufax - 1965 - 335 ip Nolan Ryan - 1972 - 332 ip, 1973 - 326 ip Ferguson Jenkins - 1974 - 328 ip, 1971 - 325ip Juan Marichal - 1968 - 328 ip There is a theory that i've read in a Deadball-Era book about old timey pitchers and their massive amount of innings. Basically, it suggested that there are some people who can naturally throw huge amounts of pitches and have a quick recovery time for their arm. Other pitchers cannot do this. People like our beloved Kerry Wood, with all his arm troubles would have not been able to hack it as a pitcher back then because his arm would have exploded and there were no ways to fix a pitcher. Some people are just physically able to sustain massive pitching workloads and some are not. Durings Cobb's career years, only 24 times in a season did a pitcher throw for over 350 innings. 5 of these seasons were by Grover Cleveland Alexander, 4 of them were Walter Johnson, 4 were Ed Walsh, and 3 were Mathewson. So 16 of the 24 350ip+ seasons during Cobb's career were pitched by 4 men. So your suggestion that pitchers routinely piled up massive and abnormal amounts of innings is just wrong. A 350ip+ season was then, like today, an anomaly. nice selective use of stats. fact is, most of the 60's and 70's pitchers you list had their careers fizzle after their monster inning years. see also Mickey Lolitch, Catfish Hunter, Andy Messersmith, etc. etc. etc. sure, there were some freaks, ie Ryan and Carlton, but Perry was not a hard thrower and Fergie saved wear and tear by not walking anyone. sure 350 was an anomoly in old timey days. it's unheard of now. in Cobbs day, year after year, almost every year, 10-15 pitchers were over 300. you sir are the one that is wrong about old timey pitchers racking up abnormal amounts of innings. its's been 25 years since a 300 ip year, 30 since 350. in 1910 alone there were at least 10 pitchers that racked up 300+. so the question must be asked, if some pitchers can rack up huge amounts of pitches and recover, why did a country with a population of 80 million that didn't allow a big chunk of its population play baseball have more of these types of guys than a country of nearly 300 million that allows everyone to play? or was it something else besides the proverbial rubber arm that allowed these guys to rack up these kinds of seasons? facts are, the very average pitchers and below average pitchers of Cobb and Ruth's days racked up 250 inning years consistently. what would Arod do with all the Jason Marquis's and Mark Redman's in the league racking up 250 innings in a year and completing 15 games? and in the same vein, let's assume what you say is true about rubber arms guys v. non-rubber arm guys. seems to me Z is a rubber arm guy. so the Cubs should run him out every 3-4 days and let him rack up 300-325 innings, right? afterall, under your theory, it will do no harm no matter how hard he throws.

That's true after you get to the majors, but I suspect many a player in the minors could make more in a real job, and some for whom the probablity of getting to the majors is low probably quit because of it. You probably don't see many Stanford grads coming back to the same level in the minors for 3 years. choices for alot of 18 year olds 1915 - help the family not starve or go play baseball 2006 - flip burgers for minimum wage or go play baseball what would you choose as an 18 year old in 1915? how about in 2006? also, not sure if he graduated, but here's one http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/john-gall.shtml

not as ridiculous as the notion that pitchers that threw 35 complete games per year threw any where near as hard or with as much movement as pitchers today. their arms simply could not have withstood the abuse. while I don't think Cobb or Ruth would literally crap their pants, i assure you they would be shocked to see a pitcher throw 95 mph into the late innings, every inning, every batter, all season long. with that said, it's impossible to say what their natural abilities would have allowed them to do if facing today's pitchers. saying they could not only adapt, but still be great, is about as presumptuous as it gets.

there also are no longer players that don't give the baseball thing a go because they have to stay working on the farm/in the coal mine/at the foundary etc etc. nowadays, taking the gamble to go play baseball isn't a gamble. it pays better than the farm/coal mine/factory even if you don't make it.

While I would tend to agree with you on the front end of the rotation, I would say the #4 and #5 pitchers in most rotations are not infinitely better, in fact I would think they are infinitely worse (for the most part). that's part of my point though. back then, there were no 4 and 5 starters, nor was there alot of relief pitching. there was just the top of the rotation putting in massive workloads. so not only were batters probably much more familiar with the pitchers, but the pitchers probably tended to be gassed. if they weren't gassed, the simplest explanation is that they did not throw nearly as hard as pitchers do today. if old timey pitchers were anywhere near the equal of today's pitchers, one would think a few of them would be able to come close to striking batters out like they do in the modern era, but that's just not the case. while there is no way to measure or know for sure, my guess is Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would crap in their pants the first time they saw a Kerry Wood fastball.