nilodnayr

I dont think Teahen is that much of a sleeper. He had a monster second half, so anyone who played last year had to take notice. If you play with idiots, some guy looking at full season stats will be fooled, but combine that with the surgery (although I think he'll be fine), the fact that 3B is crazy deep this year and hes probably not that huge of a sleeper. Although I think his ADP in a 12 team league is in the 22nd round (20th 3B), so I could be wrong. I'm not big on Murton for fantasy purposes either. In a 5x5 league he will be an asset in average and...hes a liability in HRs, SB, and most likely runs and RBIs based on playing time and batting order. If you are looking for a backup backup, obviously you arent going to get a guy whos a value in a lot of categories, but a guy like Gomes who can provide HRs, or Taveras who can provide SBs would be much more valuable. Average is a very hard category to draft for, manage, and trade. David Ross had crazy power last year, but completely abberant. His average will kill you and his power wont repeat. He comes at a point where theres a huge drop off. Catchers go from Fat Molina/Laird/Kendall to Ross/Oliva/Hall of Famer Molina.

Tim (Dierkes) is a big cubs fan, but LOTS of people are Hill fans....see his defense of the projection here

Very much so.

Wow, ZiPS is about 100 points less optimistic on Sori than PECOTA

An imprtant defensive OF'er in CF?

And doesnt he have to pay a huge income tax too?

I'm discounting the Astros because their rotation is going to suck hardcore. Roy will be excellent as usual, but subtracting Pettite and Clemens for Jennings and Williams is a huge downgrade. Pitching definitely carried them last year (4th in runs allowed). Jennings, Williams, Wandy, and Astacio is an ugly ugly rotation (although I'm very down on Jennings and Williams). Their offense should be much improved, but they were pathetic last year (only 19 more runs than the cubs). They could get to about average offensively, but I don't think it will offset the increase runs allowed.

His logic is that even though a pitcher can pitch well, he does not have anywhere near complete control over whether his team wins or loses. Wins are a TEAM stat and therefore are a much better way to display a team's value than an individual component of that team. A pitcher has the most control over the outcome of a win or loss than any other person on the team and hence some idiot a hundred and fifty years ago decided to award the pitcher a win or loss. Wins are not meaningless in determining a pitcher's value, just a poor way to do it.

And thats heavily weighted by pre-arbi guys like Howard, LaRoche, and Morneau. Compare the 7M hes making with the other guys who are FA eligible. Its scary.

Some one did some study showing the starts by Marquis and Ponson and how much of an adverse affect they had on the team. With a full year of Reyes and if Izzy is healthy with Wainwright is in the rotation, their back end should be much much improved. I'd rank the division Cards Brewers Cubs Reds Astros(assuming clemens leaves) Bucs

Everything that I read has the Bucs very high on Duffy. I dont think they would see the point in trading him for Jacque. I agree with the 3 team deal though. We could add ourselves into the LONG LONG ongoing Pitt/ATL deal. LaRoche, Cedeno, and Jacque to Pitt Gonzalez, Duffy, Moore, Ryu-ish to ATL Andruw to the Cubs

Booo Logan

It's still the 3rd quarter HA! Thanks for that.

I hear their use of the screen. Its something the bears have never been able to defend, probably because their offense never runs it. The Saints/Eagles YAC is going to be massive next week.

why dont you go for 2? Whats the point of being up 6 with 1 minute left. Its not like they are going to kick 2 field goals.

I don't think he looks like that at all. I don't see why he can't continue to develop patience at the plate along with a good approach. Those things can be taught and developed through hard work and good coaching. He may not have raw power, but I wouldn't mind another Grace-type if he is surrounded by power guys. He'll be a 375-400 OBP guy if he has a 325-350 BA. FYI, the cubs organization does not teach patience. I also worry about his transition from aluminium to wood. My thoughts... A doubles power, aggressive hitter who is decent at all facets of the game and can play multiple positions...can you say BENCH PLAYER. One question...KC's article connotes that Colvin played CF in Boise, the other one LF. Any confirmation of either? (I trust KC).

that one hurt just watching

The issue is whether or not he can go on back to back days. I think they cubs will consider it if around midseason if Dempster is getting roughed up. If Dempster has value on the market, I would trade him no, use Howry in the closers role and evaluate Wood's ability to take over (if needed) around mid-season. If Dempster isn't going to get you any value and his salary isnt going to stop you from acquiring whoever you wanted to acquire (and it seems as though thats the case), then theres no point in trading him. Wuertz should be the closer eventually anyway.

I laughed out loud when I seen that. Clark is not that bad of an option, but the Cubs are so right handed that I would perfer them to sign a left handed batter instead. False dilemma. Signing Clark doesn't preclude adding another lefthanded bat. And Jacque should have a platoon partner. I'd rather it be Clark in CF than Murton in LF. Ward, Izturis, Jones, and Pagan are the only left handed batters on the team. I would perfer the Cubs to sign two more left handed batters. Floyd would be a good option, and someone who can play the infield. Why? Are you afraid of ROOGYs?

Here is a very good explanation of ERA+ Its a really easy stat to understand. Thank you, what about the other stuff? K9/B ~~ I think that means balls and strikes per nine innings. THT has a good glossary. Its also a great website to visit daily to read their interesting articles.

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do. If you are using an outcome to measure the value of an individual player and as a predictor for future outcomes then you must ascertain how much influence that individual player has on the outcome. Pitchers have a significant influence over the outcome of a win, but so does their offense , their defense, and luck. If you look at ERA, you get a better idea of a pitchers value by eliminating their offense. If you look at DIPS, you get a better idead by eliminating their defense. If you look at component ERA, you get a better idea by eliminating some luck. If you look at ERA+ you get a better idea by eliminating park factors and comparing to the league. Obviously the game is not played in a vacuum, but that doesn't mean you have to value individual players using team statistics. Wins are a poor statistic in quanifying a pitchers value to a team because it is an outcome that a pitcher has a minority of influence upon. I dont understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp. Steve Stone was really good at knowing what pitches would be thrown in what situations, but other than that from all the comments he has made post-Cubs, he has shown that he is not the baseball genius we all thought he was. that's your opinion but i think it safe to say that he knows quite a bit more about pitching and pitchers by far than anyone on this board. well not to be a hyocrit, but Steve Stone wants to be a general manager, but its funny that those guys who get paid to decide who a general manager is haven't exactly hired Steve yet. Harold Reynolds knows quite a bit more about hitting and hitters (and hitting on women) than anyone on this board, but that doesnt mean I have to be a sheep and follow his opinion that valuing a player on runs scored is the way to go.

And why does that make it right? Is there no value in questioning the commonly perceived notion? The Church said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, does that mean they are right? Its funny that the the President is a bithering idiot, but hey, we re-elected him, so everything he says and thinks must be right (and Im a Republican). Do you blindly agree with everything your boss or manager or CEO says? Well they are getting paid to run the company, so how could they be wrong? the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe can be disproven while the value of wins by a pitcher is based on pure opinion. i just happen to value the opinion of people who have actually participated in major leauge baseball above people that will never participate other than being spectators. who knows more about flying a plane-a seasoned pilot or a guy who messes around with a flight simulator on his pc? questioning the value of a commonly perceived notion and saying that someone is a fool if they disagree with you are two totally different things. A pitcher is awareded a win if he leaves the game after the fifth inning and his offense has scored at least one run and has the lead and his team keeps the lead through the end of the game. Therefore the pitcher and his defense must allow less runs than his team scores on offense before the game is over and in games inwhich he does not complete, he must rely on his relievers and defense to not allow the other team to take the lead at any point. THERE, by explaining how a win is awarded, I disproved that it is a good stat to value a pitcher. How much of that verbage is about the pitcher and how much is about other factors?

Here is a very good explanation of ERA+ Its a really easy stat to understand.

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do. If you are using an outcome to measure the value of an individual player and as a predictor for future outcomes then you must ascertain how much influence that individual player has on the outcome. Pitchers have a significant influence over the outcome of a win, but so does their offense , their defense, and luck. If you look at ERA, you get a better idea of a pitchers value by eliminating their offense. If you look at DIPS, you get a better idead by eliminating their defense. If you look at component ERA, you get a better idea by eliminating some luck. If you look at ERA+ you get a better idea by eliminating park factors and comparing to the league. Obviously the game is not played in a vacuum, but that doesn't mean you have to value individual players using team statistics. Wins are a poor statistic in quanifying a pitchers value to a team because it is an outcome that a pitcher has a minority of influence upon. I dont understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp. Steve Stone was really good at knowing what pitches would be thrown in what situations, but other than that from all the comments he has made post-Cubs, he has shown that he is not the baseball genius we all thought he was.

And why does that make it right? Is there no value in questioning the commonly perceived notion? The Church said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, does that mean they are right? Its funny that the the President is a bithering idiot, but hey, we re-elected him, so everything he says and thinks must be right (and Im a Republican). Do you blindly agree with everything your boss or manager or CEO says? Well they are getting paid to run the company, so how could they be wrong?