Diffusion

Well, technically, Jesus is right!

Ooh, replacement surgery, sounds to me close enough to a brutal procedure for getting undeserving pitchers off a roster that I like it!

Down years happen. Players with Giles' track record of success and of Giles' age tend to bounce back a lot more often than not. Talk about steriods is at the very least cheap, and completely irrelevant if on the other side of things you're happy to overlook the series of problems Giles had last year with his left hand - a sprained ligament in his middle finger, a jammed thumb and a deep bruise between the index and middle fingers that required a cortisone shot. The bottom line is this - Marcus Giles is a 28-year-old career .285/.361/.448 hitter that plays a good second base. I'll "take my chances" on that over Mark DeRosa every single time.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with that. Are you saying we should look only at DeRosa's career numbers because the difference between splits for a right-handed hitter, however large, is probably co-incidential (as righties that can't hit righties are rooted out in the minors)? sort of - i was saying he probably isnt as good against lefties as his splits suggest. Fair enough, but that doesn't really counter the point that he's not good enough even against righties for an everyday job, unless you assume some transferance of his lefty split to his righty split. What's the case that it's fair to assume that? I think I've perhaps unfairly assumed you're arguing for DeRosa here as opposed to just making a general observation, by the way.

Other than the reason DeRosa came to Chicago was to start at 2B. When a 28-year-old .285/.361/.448 career good defensive second baseman comes on the market, you make sure you revise any plans you may once have had for Mark DeRosa-types. Alternatively, you could do yourself a favour and have made better plans for Mark DeRosa-types in the first place, plans not involving a starting job and a three year commitment.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with that. Are you saying we should look only at DeRosa's career numbers because the difference between splits for a right-handed hitter, however large, is probably co-incidential (as righties that can't hit righties are rooted out in the minors)?

We have to be all over Marcus Giles. Fine defensive second baseman with a career .285/.361/.448 line that's 28 years old. All over him. He could prove the best move the Cubs make all offseason.

I like Marshall more than most. A rough premature rookie year and everyone's soured very quickly on him. I still see a healthy chunk of Mark Mulder in him though, right down to their rookie numbers being just about identical. The Mark Mulder that got traded for Danny Haren, Kiko Calero and Daric Barton, that is. Pitcher's frame, three solid pitches (high-eighties/low-nineties FB with lots of downward action, good curve, decent change), strong command, an inate idea of how to pitch, I don't think he's a guy that should be written off too soon. He'll certainly never be an ace, but I don't see too much reason he shouldn't be a solid three or four, which in this market is gold, apparently.

I like it, but one change: SS DeRosa/Theriot/Izturis 1) Mark DeRosa is a 31-year-old career .260/.316/.366 hitter of right-handers, and on account of that absolutely should not even be considered for a full-time job 2) Mark DeRosa is has spent just 175 innings (or 20 full games) at shortstop over the last three years, and it's for good reasons

C Barrett 1B Lee 2B Giles 3B Ramirez SS Izturis LF Murton CF Soriano RF Jones/DeRosa

Without the IBBs, Soriano's OBP last year would have been .337.

C Michael Barrett 1B Derrek Lee 2B Alfonso Soriano 3B Aramis Ramirez SS Julio Lugo LF Adam Dunn CF Jacque Jones/Mark DeRosa platoon RF Matt Murton Hehe, at second and in the outfield the defence would be brutal, but offensively at least that'd be disgustingly good! Though I have no idea how I'd put it into a lineup!

Because Jacque Jones cannot hit lefties? If Soriano was at 2b and in a dream world far away, JD Drew was signed to play CF, would a platoon of Jacque Jones/Mark DeRosa not make sense? Between the two of them, they'll make approximately 9m. If for 9m, I see: .342 .394 .589 .983 (DeRosa) .303 .358 .528 .886 (Jones) production out of RF, I can't say I would complain. The combined production of those two would match or quite possibly be cheaper than any single player who could provide that type of production (outside of the top young players in the league that haven't gotten their big payday yet and are usually not available). Even better, is the fact one of them makes for a very decent guy coming off the bench in games the other guy started. It's bench depth besides being called a platoon. Further to your point, based on last year's splits as you partially quoted them above, assuming a platoon that's 85% efficient, assuming that being platooned has no discernable effect on their performance, DeJones' combined production works out at .305/.357/.522 at a payroll cost of about $9-10m next year. Based on their career splits, in other words assuming that none of the progress either player made last year will carry over, again making the same assumptions, DeJones' combined production still works out at .290/.341/.472 at the same price.

It's no secret that Jacque Jones can't hit lefties. A less well-known fact is that Mark DeRosa can't hit much hit righties, but is a bit of a lefty killer. DeRosa last season started 59 games in right field, more than at any other single position, and seemed to handle that just fine. Jacque Jones plays right field. It's almost too obvious -- a Jacque Jones and Mark DeRosa platoon in right field! Jacque Jones -- .295/.343/.493 career versus righties (3368 PA) Mark DeRosa -- .306/.367/.487 career versus lefties (532 PA) Jacque Jones -- .228/.275/.350 career versus lefties (992 PA) Mark DeRosa -- .260/.316/.366 career versus righties (1281 PA) The perfect right field platoon then, with Jones seeing every righty and DeRosa every lefty, would, on the basis of how often the Cubs have seen lefties over the last two years and the above career splits see the Cubs get production of .298/.350/.491 out of right field, better even than what Jones gave us last year (.285/.334/.499) in his second best ever season. If any of Jones' improvement upon his career numbers last year were to carry over, or for that matter any of DeRosa's, neither entirely improbable, then obviously the Cubs would even exceed that kind of production. Last year's splits were as follows... Jacque Jones -- .303/.358/.528 2006 versus righties (433 PA) Mark DeRosa -- .342/.394/.589 2006 versus lefties (160 PA) Jacque Jones -- .234/.261/.416 2006 versus lefties (142 PA) Mark DeRosa -- .278/.342/.404 2006 versus righties (412 PA) Based just on those as opposed to the career splits, a perfect Jones and DeRosa platoon would work out at a staggering .314/.368/.545. Now, obviously, perfect platoons can't (and maybe shouldn't) ever exist. There will arise situations over the course of the year when one half of the platoon will have been taken out of the game, the other put in but needed for multiple plate appearances, including ones against wrong-armed pitchers. And there may once in a while arise situations where it doesn't make statistical sense to take one half of the platoon out, perhaps because he's got a good matchup against a certain wrong-armed pitcher, or because the other half of the platoon might be more useful in another spot, for instance as a pinch-hitter, and so on. And there may be situations where it may not make sense to take one half out because of psychological implications, or something along those lines. But supposing the platoon is 85% efficient, say (which means both DeRosa and Jones get 50 plate appearances or so against wrong-handed pitchers over the course of the year), the overall platoon numbers still work out as .290/.341/.472 based on career splits (as opposed to, against all pitchers, Jones being a .280/.328/.461 career hitter and DeRosa coming in at .273/.331/.404) and .305/.357/.522 based on last year's numbers (as opposed to, against all pitchers, Jones hitting .285/.334/.499 last year and DeRosa .296/.357/.456). Those numbers certainly suggest that, regardless of whether DeRosa and Jones regress all the way back to career levels or not, the production you'd get from a platoon of the two in right field would, together, give you a sixth "player" (DeJones if you will, sixth after Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Barrett and Murton) that you could genuinely rely on to put up really solid numbers at six spots in the lineup. Obviously the Cubs signed DeRosa with the intention of playing him at second base. If you use him only as the short side of a platoon, giving him only 200 plate appearances a year, that has implications for the rest of the lineup. The biggest - who do you play at second base instead? Well, Ryan Theriot over the last three seasons, over four levels, has hit .296/.370/.387. Though consistently very old for his level in the minor leagues over that time, the way that he took to the majors in his short stint last year was encouraging enough that I think he maybe deserves another go. Though he wouldn't hit for much power, an on-base percentage like that would challenge to lead the team and simply couldn't be passed up on. I would though, all the same, try and find a cheap alternative to Theriot who could step in if he flopped, and I'd bat Theriot eighth to start with (assuming Izturis isn't still around). The only way that this approach wouldn't make best sense is if the improvements that DeRosa made last year were real and carried over in just about their entirity. DeRosa last year was actually respectable against right-handers to the extent that, if he carried on hitting like that, giving a full-time job to someone with as little major league experience and upside as Ryan Theriot over him would probably be unjustifiable. Instead you'd play DeRosa at second, to have Theriot as a very useful bench piece, and search out another outfield lefty-masher to platoon with Jones. Personally though, I don't for a second believe that DeRosa is much for real. His track record through last year all said one thing - twenty-fifth man - and last year, let's not forget, he was hitting in a very friendly hitting environment. Since he's entirely the wrong side of thirty, 32 next February, last year screams to me nothing but career year. With Jones and DeRosa in right field and Theriot at second, Soriano would play centre field. I think he'd be fine there. C Michael Barrett 1B Derrek Lee 2B Ryan Theriot 3B Aramis Ramirez SS Julio Lugo LF Matt Murton CF Alfonso Soriano RF Jacque Jones/Mark DeRosa strict platoon

So we've established two thirds of the three-way is TruffleShuffle and Eric Patterson...

From July 4th through the end of the season, Felix Pie hit .331/.378/.532 in 269 plate appearances at Triple-A. He was, of course, still only 21, in his first season at Iowa no less. In those 269 plate appearances he hit 20 doubles, 3 triples and 8 home runs, walked 19 times, struck out 48 times, stole 11 bases and was caught stealing 3 times. Pie's overall numbers then of .282/.341/.451, supremely respectable in themselves for someone of his youth and inexperience, don't actually tell the full story of his season. He even actually started out hot, cooled to just about frozen for the two months or so up until July 3rd, dragging his numbers all the way down to .244/.312/.429, and only then went on the rampage the rest of the year to bring his numbers back up. The very hot prolonged finish to the year could be an indication that Pie's closer than might be expected based his overall numbers to being done with minor league ball and being ready for the step up the majors. I fully expect he'll struggle horribly at first in the majors, and that it'll take him longer to turn things around than a month or two, but his induction has to come at some point, and it'd be better to get it over and done with at a point where the rest of the lineup is strong enough to carry a dead weight. Put Lugo at shortstop, Soriano at second perhaps with Jones and DeRosa platooning in right field, Lee, Ramirez, Barrett and Murton obviously rounding things out, and that'd probably be the case. In other words, assuming Pie is just about too good for Triple-A, bringing him up sooner rather than later might potentially be a good idea.

So you're anti-semantic? Nice. Your point that they're relatively similar at the plate in terms of overall rate of production is a point well made, though arguments could probably be made with reasonable conviction that Soriano's maturing as a hitter, and that there's possibly something to be read into his well-stated preference for leading off and the almost too big to be entirely co-incidence career split that his numbers accordingly exhibit (batting first -- .291/.340/.544 in 2227 PA, anywhere else -- .267/.309/.473 in 1991 PA). All the same, there is absolutely no reason to disregard Soriano's athleticism and footspeed with such abandon. They are, in isolation, both assets. Assets reflected in many more things on the baseball field than those encompassed by your crude SB/CS calculation. Even if you limit yourself to looking at just baserunning, even there SB/CS is inadequate, for it doesn't take into account going from first to third on a single, scoring from first on a double, scoring from third on a groundball out or a sacrifice fly, beating out the double play, or any of the other small nuances that there are to baserunning, almost all of them intrinsically linked to two things - the right instincts, and, when it all comes down to it, the tag's been made and the umpire's made his ruling, footspeed. Why limit yourself though to looking merely at baserunning? Altheticism and footspeed have sure impacts upon Soriano's ability to play defence as well. Again, in conjunction with the right instincts, the ability to read the ball off the bat, good reactions, everything else necessary to play the outfield, altheticism and footspeed have their role to play. Soriano's footspeed, all else equal, will enable him to cover more ground, his altheticism will seemingly inevitably see him laying out for spectacular catches that others mightn't attempt, his cannon for an arm will add an out or two here and there on defence, and all these small incidences come with positive run values attached, that, over the course of a full season, are equivalent of an extra few points of EqA or OPS or OPS+ or whatever other catch-all offensive metric you prefer, to the plausible extent that when you're comparing him to a Carlos Lee, statements such as "when they are standing at the plate they are pretty much unrecognizable from each other", when talking about reality, are no longer true. Why limit yourself though to looking at performance just in terms of ratios? Altheticism arguably may have it be the case that Soriano's a whole lot less likely to get injured than a Carlos Lee as they enter their thirties. And it will almost certainly have it be the case that Soriano's a whole lot better a bet to age well and to retain his performance level and keep putting up all those ratios you were talking about before. Just because these things are difficult to quantify, to express in some sort of easy numerical catch-all measure, doesn't mean you should pay them such scant attention. Like you, I'm guessing, absolutely nothing annoys me more than a general manager that ignores years upon years of telling at the plate numbers just because a player "has wheels". It's much more important that a player can hit. But being athletic, able to run and play defence, still has some value, albeit significantly less. So when a player can hit, that he's also athletic is an added bonus. Maybe it's not worth paying up for, but it's not something that can be dismissed with a crude mention of SB/CS.

Alfonso Soriano career splits... Batting first -- .291/.340/.544 in 2227 PA Anywhere else -- .267/.309/.473 in 1991 PA

Mark DeRosa Plays lots of positions, versatile Can't hit righties to save his life Can hit lefties a fair amount Comfortably wrong side of 30 $1-2m for one year, $1.5-3m for two years Bench guy you want to keep on the bench Stupid Cubs. Again.

Marmol watch 58 IP, 42 H, 1 HR, 25 BB, 67 K, 2.33 ERA in 11 starts

Santana has made 118 career starts, and in those starts he has 59 career wins (he has 4 career wins as a reliever). That's exactly a win every other start. To reach 300 career wins then, Santana needs another 237 wins. So, at his current career pace, Santana would need to make another 474 starts. Starting 33-34 games a year, and not missing any starts, he should reach that point midway through the 2021 season, when he'd be 42. I think that's a better guestimate. However, Santana, being a pitcher, isn't particularly likely to never miss a start over the next 14 years or so, and it'd be something else if he continued this torrid pace of his. On the other hand though, it's entirely possible that he may wind up at some point on a team capable of scoring runs for him, and that he therefore might be able to maintain or improve upon his current pace without the need for continuing to be quite as ridiculously good for such a ridiculously period of time. It's possible that the Twins' reluctance to put him straight into the rotation full-time as of 2002 may end up costing him a shot at 300 wins, as might their pretty pathetic offence. It's hard enough to win 300 games as it is, it's harder to it when you're not a full-time starter before the age of 25 and your offence doesn't ever score any runs for you. Through 27 years and 78 days (modern-ish era 300-game winners) Greg Maddux - 102 wins (reached 300 aged 38 ) Roger Clemens - 95 wins (aged 40) Tom Seaver - 95 wins (aged 40) Don Sutton - 91 wins (aged 41) Tom Glavine - 81 wins (might do it next year aged 41) Steve Carlton - 77 wins (aged 38 ) Nolan Ryan - 69 wins (aged 43) Johan Santana - 63 wins Gaylord Perry - 24 wins (aged 43) Phil Niekro - 4 wins (aged 46)

Marmol watch! 54.1 IP, 38 H, 0 HR, 24 BB, 63 K, 2.15 ERA

Where has my argument changed? Where I have I said I didn't say anything when I clearly did? You never directly responded to the original discussion yet still argued with me about something else presumably because you didn't like what I originally said about Prior. So? I can respond to what I want to respond to.

Where has my argument changed? Where I have I said I didn't say anything when I clearly did?

I'd love to believe you, but you weren't. You're just saying that as it's an easy out for you. But let's look again at what you wrote... The "opposition who likes Prior" is only using their "gut feelings and such" to project how they think Prior will fare in the future. They're not commenting at all about how Prior has done in previous years. You can't have a gut feeling about whether or not Prior went on the DL in 2004. You clearly set yourself up as opposed to this opposition. What then are you opposing? You're opposing their opinions as to how Prior will fare in the future, that's the only thing you can be opposing. There's nothing else for you to be opposing. And, opposing this, you said you had the facts on your side. Since we've clearly established that there are no facts as to how Prior will fare in the future, I said that and you freely agreed with that. So, if there are no facts as to how Prior will do in the future, how can they be on your side? They can't. Therefore you're wrong. Just deal with it. Quit digging for yourself deeper and deeper holes by pretending you didn't say stuff, pretending you were talking about something else, constantly changing your argument and every single other trick you're pulling every single time your points are refuted.