Diffusion

I read Baseball Prospectus about as often as I'm guessing you do. And does it not trouble you that we've just possibly traded three prospects for a one year rental of a flawed player? So if the Cubs acquired, say, the worst hitter in baseball history and decided to make him an everyday starter while paying him, say, $8.5m over 3 years, you wouldn't question the Cubs, but would limit yourself to rooting and cheering for him and the Cubs?

Fixed for you. .329

Really? .276/.326/.354 - that's not a "good hitter." As predicted, the first response focused on last year. What about his career line? 305 average, 355 OBP. Also, are you aware that his career OPS in day games is .824? Juan Pierre is a good hitter. How do you explain the .824 OPS in day games? If you don't have an explanation, how do you know it will translate to day games in Wrigley? And his career OBP when you take into account his caught stealings is .329. All of a sudden not so impressive. And, while it's convenient for people to overlook this .329 stat because I've just made it up, still no-one has made a case for it being unjustified. Some players see the ball better in day games - that appears to be the case with Pierre. Seeing the ball better? You're going to need to elaborate. Does someone need to buy Pierre some night-vision goggles for Christmas? What does that change? He's still getting caught. And by getting caught, he's giving the hitters behind him just as much chance to drive him in as if he'd simply slapped his way into an out while still in the batter's box.

Who's player C?

Really? .276/.326/.354 - that's not a "good hitter." As predicted, the first response focused on last year. What about his career line? 305 average, 355 OBP. Also, are you aware that his career OPS in day games is .824? Juan Pierre is a good hitter. How do you explain the .824 OPS in day games? If you don't have an explanation, how do you know it will translate to day games in Wrigley? And his career OBP when you take into account his caught stealings is .329. All of a sudden not so impressive. And, while it's convenient for people to overlook this .329 stat because I've just made it up, still no-one has made a case for it being unjustified.

To put this in perspective, that's only 4 runs scored behind Furcal and second best among national league leadoff hitters last year. :shock: As such, it's hard to fault his runs scored. Except Furcal wasn't hitting ahead of Castillo, Cabrera and Delgado, or an equivalent trio, Furcal played 8 games fewer while amassing 29 fewer plate appearances, and Furcal's effective OBP at .333 wasn't that hot. A good leadoff hitter hitting in front of three fine hitters and playing every single day should score at least 120 runs. I don't have the energy to research this right now, but I believe that you'll find that the list of league leaders in runs scored is usually filled with power hitters. If you don't drive yourself in a lot, it's tough to have huge runs scored totals. I could be proven wrong. I don't see how this, which is true, impacts upon what I was saying. A good leadoff hitter hitting in front of three fine hitters and playing every single should score score at least 120 runs. Take, for instance, Johnny Damon. His OBP with CS taken into account in 2005 was .365. He was hitting in front of the pretty awful Renteria, and the pretty awesome Ortiz and Manny. In 148 games, he scored 117 runs.

Career high OBP of .341 outside of Coors Field when you take into account all the caught stealings. That's a strange idea you have there of success in the leadoff role. Neifi Perez outhit Cub centre fielders last year. So, regarding the fact that there's an upgrade involved, big deal, frankly. The fact that we could have made a worse trade doesn't make a bad trade any better. Seriously dude when you make up your own stats that jade everything in your direction how does anyone present a coherent argument against what you are saying? or i guess thats what you were hoping. If you want to argue that the very unconventional statistic that I've decided to use in this instance isn't applicable, shoot. Why is it unfair to subtract caught stealings from times on base? Is it not the case that the purpose of getting on base is to allow those behind you to drive you in such that the team scores a run? And is it not the case that if you get caught stealing, you're not giving those behind you that opportunity? Is Neifi Perez a power hitter or a slap hitter? Well he's a .320/.346/.481 hitter in Coors Field. That's quite simply not true.

To put this in perspective, that's only 4 runs scored behind Furcal and second best among national league leadoff hitters last year. :shock: As such, it's hard to fault his runs scored. Except Furcal wasn't hitting ahead of Castillo, Cabrera and Delgado, or an equivalent trio, Furcal played 8 games fewer while amassing 29 fewer plate appearances, and Furcal's effective OBP at .333 wasn't that hot. A good leadoff hitter hitting in front of three fine hitters and playing every single day should score at least 120 runs.

It does make the deal better, but I would have preferred it to say that either Nolassco or Pinto were not a part of the deal. I might be able to stomach Pinto/Nolasco and Mitre for Pierre and a decent Marlins pitching prospect.

In the case of Milton Bradley, we know that a better player was available and at a much lower cost. Really? The most recent reports have been Bradley for Zito. Is Zito really a lower cost than Mitre/Nolasco/Pinto? The rumour was Barry Zito for Milton Bradley, Joel Guzman and Edwin Jackson. And it was the A's that offered it.

What's his batting average when he does bunt? I'm not sure that's relevant. The bunt is easy to defend against if you're expecting it. And if Pierre bunts every single time, then obviously you're going to expect it. It's only when the bunt is unexpected that it's a useful tool for stealing first base.

What? Runs will only follow if Juan Pierre is still on the bases to score them when Walker, Lee and Ramirez come up to hit. If he gets thrown out caught stealing, that's obviously not the case. So how on earth is penalising him for the caught stealings somewhat unfair? And let's not pretend that Pierre hasn't hit in front of good hitters before - Castillo, Cabrera, Delgado. Strangely, the runs didn't follow then. Pierre scored just 96 runs in 2005 despite playing everyday. Perhaps because his effective OBP was only a sliver over .300, no? Finally, the primary goal of Juan Pierre should be to score runs, not to get to first base. Getting to first base is just the first step, albeit a crucial one. The second step is to not get thrown out trying to steal second such that you might as well never have been on the bases at all.

Not really. A double doesn't only get you to second, it pushes everybody else along at least two bases. A stolen base is worth a little more than half a total base. True, but if there aren't any runners on to advance, as was the case in 66.1% of plate appearances for MLB leadoff hitters in 2005 (and almost certainly higher in the NL with the pitcher hitting 9th), then it doesn't make too much difference. So while I take your point that a stolen base probably isn't worth the same as a total base, and that therefore I was overstating Pierre's slugging, I'd argue that it's worth more than half a total base. All true. Got forbid the guy should suffer an injury that compromises his speed. It's his entire game. It's responsible for his entire average, the vast majority of his limited range, all of his power and, obviously, everything on the basepaths.

In the case of Milton Bradley, we know that a better player was available and at a much lower cost. Well in that case, why didn't we throw Pawelek, Harvey, Dopirak, every other single minor leaguer we have that figures to be a little way away from the majors, into this trade for Pierre? Seeing as we already have an equivalent leadoff option than Juan Pierre on our roster in Todd Walker, I have to go with the prospects. Or later for that matter. Because one year after we traded Cruz, he was packaged with a top lefty pitching prospect and a useless backup outfielder to net Tim Hudson. Hmm. Just because it's wise to sell high on a player doesn't mean you need to make a bad trade. Except that's a thoroughly stupid way of going about things. Both can play CF, where their offence is far more valuable. Then you can put a proper big bat in RF. All in all your team is many times better off for it.

I do too. I'm trying to look at this in a positive way, as well. I can see some positives in it, and some negatives. I'm choosing to believe the positives. These positives being? Here's some positives: The Cubs won't be tempted to give Damon a 5 year contract. One act of stupidity being less stupid than an act of greater stupidity doesn't make the first act of studipity not stupid. If Dusty's such a problem, get rid of Dusty. Don't go making loads of stupid moves just so Dusty can't make stupider ones. Because he can only concentrate on one thing at a time? That's okay then.

Career high OBP of .341 outside of Coors Field when you take into account all the caught stealings. That's a strange idea you have there of success in the leadoff role. Neifi Perez outhit Cub centre fielders last year. So, regarding the fact that there's an upgrade involved, big deal, frankly. The fact that we could have made a worse trade doesn't make a bad trade any better.

I do too. I'm trying to look at this in a positive way, as well. I can see some positives in it, and some negatives. I'm choosing to believe the positives. These positives being? -Prevents Hendry from being tempted to rush Pierre to the majors at some point in 2006. No matter how talented Felix is, he needs to improve his plate discipline if he's going to be the player we hope. This gives the Cubs the luxury of patience. You could stick any CF not called Pie out there next year and fulfill this criteria. Like Corey Patterson. You could even stick an infielder out there, and still fulfill this criteria. Like Jerry Hairston. Well why didn't we throw in another five or six prospects then? I mean, we'd have more 40-man roster space. Small matter that most of the reason we don't have much 40-man roster space is because Hendry doesn't appear to have much of a clue as to how to put a 40-man roster together. If Dusty's that big a problem, fire him and appoint someone that'll run the club properly. How about an OBP and SLG game? He's lusting after the wrong thing. And if such misjudged lustings compromise his ability to get anything else at all done, like RF, he's obviously not the right man for the job either. Should have been guaranteed anyway. You'd at least hope so, wouldn't you? Actually, two draft picks, probably. One of them in the 16-30 range, and one in the 30-45ish range. This though assumes that the Cubs dare offer Pierre arbitration, which isn't a given. And I'll take actual prospects over draft picks any day.

I do. But don't explain it please. I am trying to make the best of this trade. Why? It's a flat out awful trade, and you know it. The only thing that makes it awful is if Pinto and Nolasco could have been used to get Wilkerson or Michaels, or even as part of a larger package for Abreu. And you know that that's not the case how? You've heard the Nationals and Phillies don't like pitching prospects? What the Cubs have done here is they've overpaid for mediocrity, and because that mediocrity happens to be better than the terrible that they got from the position last year, they're justifying it on the basis of it being an upgrade. The truth of the matter is that the Cubs should be chasing the best available solutions. Wilkerson and Abreu are both available, by all reports, and they're the best options. The Cubs should only be considering lesser options when it's become entirely clear that these players are essentially unattainable at an acceptable price. Yes, the Cubs have plenty of prospects, many of them with reputations that are probably out of line with what can reasonably be expected from them in the majors in the future, and as such selling high is a good idea. But at least make sure that when you sell high on your prospects you get more than a mediocrity in return. Don't even consider selling high on prospects when you're getting nothing more than one year of a mediocrity in return. Overpay for the best option out there, if you really must overpay. If the Cubs had given up Pinto, Nolasco and Mitre for Wilkerson I wouldn't be that happy. That's still overpaying. But at least I could live with the fact that the Cubs got the best option out there. Besides Milton Bradley perhaps, but that's debatable. He's better defensively, he's pretty damn good with the bat, but he's also not healthy and he has problems controlling himself, though I don't believe he's a bad guy by any stretch of the imagination. Patterson. They've long been interested in him. Throw in a pitching prospect. Grant Johnson say, a second rounder from 2004. What's the problem? They also asked for Prior in return from Abreu. It's called aiming high. You aim high in your response. You then compromise and find something in the middle ground. So do I expect a rebound, but that's besides the point. The fact he should perform at about the level of a major league average CF is also besides the point. He's not what this team needs. For a leadoff man, he doesn't get on base and stay on base enough, his defence in CF is below average, and he's due to earn about $5m in 2005, and then he'll hit free agency. God forbid the guy loses a step or two due to an unforeseeable leg injury, because speed is about 75% of his game. Not a reason to make a bad trade involving them.

I do too. I'm trying to look at this in a positive way, as well. I can see some positives in it, and some negatives. I'm choosing to believe the positives. These positives being?

I do. But don't explain it please. I am trying to make the best of this trade. Why? It's a flat out awful trade, and you know it.

Does no one understand the concepts of marginal value and opportunity cost?

Yes. Also, in three other years, he didn't. Which is what happens when you're entirely dependent upon average on balls in play. Including running himself into so many outs that his effective OBP as I just argued isn't at all impressive. Less than he'd score if he ran himself into a whole lot less outs on the basepaths. Besides, as goes without saying, runs aren't a great measure of an individual's ability. He makes a lot of contact. Not much of it is that solid. Career 3.42 pitches per plate appearance. Which is actually pretty rubbish. Has Don Kessinger was good ever watched Pierre play CF? If he had, he wouldn't have mistaken good speed with good range. Pierre reads the ball off the bat poorly, so he gets poor jumps, he doesn't read the ball in the air much better, and so his routes aren't great. As such his range is a million miles away from "excellent". Still a problem, albeit a relatively minor one. Brilliant. Which, when on the whole he's no better than average as a centre fielder, is grossly overpaid. In other words, he's a one year rental.

What is on-base percentage? Is it not how often a player gets himself on-base, the purpose of being on-base that the players behind him can drive him and a run can be scored? What is slugging percentage? Is it not how far around the bases a player can get himself without the assistance of others? Well, in the case of a basestealer, no. Every time that a player gets caught stealing, near enough makes no odds he might as well have not been on the bases in the first place. An out on the bases or an out in the batter's box, he ain't scoring either way. As for each stolen base, the basestealer is getting himself around the bases without the assistance of others. And really, what's the difference between hitting a double and hitting a single and then stealing second base? Again, near enough makes no odds, there isn't one. Do you not agree? So, if you subtract a time on base for every caught stealing (such that on-base percentage reflects how often he's on-base with a chance at scoring), and award him a total base for every stolen base (such that slugging percentage reflects how far he's capable of getting himself around the bases by himself), Pierre's effective career on-base and slugging percentages when you include basestealing are... Career: .329 / .454 Of course, you have to consider the effect that Pierre's speed has in terms of staying out of double play, scoring from first on a double, from second on a single, and maybe speed does make it easier for the hitters behind him, distracts the pitcher, puts off the fielders, leads to more errors etc, so you have to effectively consider the .329/.454 Pierre a sensational baserunner, but that .329 figure for hitting and basestealing combined I don't think is acceptable out of the leadoff spot. 2000: .326 / .355 2001: .353 / .489 2002: .313 / .422 2003: .334 / .470 2004: .341 / .473 2005: .302 / .441 Those are the Pierre breakdowns in terms of effective OBP and SLG year-by-year. A career high of .353 in effective OBP, and that was in Coors Field. A career high of .489 in the same year. After that, .341 and .473 are Pierre's best. Not that great. After all, the Cubs already have a player that's pretty bleh defensively that's put up the following numbers in this same metric... 2004: .345 / .468 2005: .353 / .476 Career: .340 / . 456 Of course, he's not anywhere near as good a baserunner, but if that's the only real difference, why on earth are we paying Nolasco, Pinto and Mitre plus plenty of cash for such a marginal upgrade at the leadoff spot. What, because Dusty's pride won't bat a slow white-man lead-off?

Hardly. Barry Zito isn't an ace, even if he has a reputation as one, and he's one year away from becoming a free agent that the A's have little hope of re-signing. Certainly there's a big market for him, what with other quality options limited and expensive, but he's not going to fetch that significant a haul. Not even close. The A's reportedly offered Zito to the Dodgers for Milton Bradley, Chad Billingsley and Edwin Jackson. And the Dodgers said no, even in spite of the fact that Bradley and Jackson's value to them (if not to other people) has just about bottomed out.

Who appoints the manager?