nick23

How does OBP at the lead off spot not improve the offense?

i didn't know that dominant in any way denoted good health. besides the whole point is that the offense could have bailed the injured pitchers out last year if it could have shown more discipline. Please tell me what you would have done differently last year to improve our plate discipline. Traded Corey before the season? Kept Sosa? Named Dubois the LF starter? Have a designated runner that ran for Nomar after he hit the ball? Truth is last season was a disaster. Everything went wrong. The team was good enough to go a long way. Just didn't happen.

That's weird, I never said everybody should be dominant, but again, you fail to comprehend the words I wrote. Or you purposefully changed them to make me look stupid or something, but I doubt that. Everybody doesn't have to have a high OBP, but the overall team should. Saying the OBP is fine because the infield has a high OBP doesn't hold water. It's the entire team that matters, the whole lineup. 1, or 2, or 3 guys with solid numbers can't negate the rest of the squad. And the point about non-dominant pitchers is that if your goal is to dominate with pitching, you shouldn't waste millions upon millions on mediocre or bad pitchers, as Hendry has done the past few years. Teams with a great lineup that are just looking for innings eaters can justify spending a little extra on mediocre pitchers, because they don't need dominance. But teams with average to below average lineups can't afford to waste time and money on several guys with 4+ ERAs and no semblance of an ability to dominate. I know exactly what you said. You said we had a "couple" of dominant pitchers. I'm assuming by a couple you mean Wood, Prior, and Z. I still find that statement funny because both Wood and Prior missed a lot of time last year and we still led the league in K's and BAA. That sounds pretty dominant to me. And we have 1 really bad pitcher on the staff, Rucsh, and we're paying him 3 million dollars this year. So to say we're paying millions upon millions on mediocre or bad pithcers is just wrong. If Wood stays healthy and the bulpen additions duplicate last years success the staff as a whole will be dominant no matter which way you look at it. Also, I never said the OPB was fine. I said going into last season we had the chance for an above average team OBP. Before what happened to Nomar and Corey. Look, I never said the 2006 cubs are my ideal team. And I definitely don't want to come off like i'll defend Hendry at all times. I absolutely hate the Jones, Neifi, and Rucsh signings. But if Dusty has a good year and fills out the lineup cards correctly, we have a good enough team to go all the way IMO.

Hendry's style has been one dimensional in that he's stressed pitching over and above everything else. Pitchers have been drafted all the time, to the point where there hasn't been enough room for the guys. The position players have been baren. Leading the league in K's is nice, but when it's accompanied by high walk rates as well, it's hardly dominating. Besides, I never said "we don't have dominant pitchers". That's just poor comprehension on your part. What I said was if your strategy is to dominate with pitching, you shouldn't poor so many resources into guys like Maddux, Estes, Rusch, Eyre, Howry, Alfonseca and the rest of the mediocrity brigade. If you want to dominate with pitching, get dominant pitchers, not just a couple. But what you should do, is create a top 5 run prevention team and a top 5 run scoring team, which will be a great team. If you settle on so many so-so arms, like Hendry has done, then get a great lineup. If you settle for a mediocre lineup, as Hendry has done, then get a great pitching staff. Instead, Hendry has put all the Cubs hope on a fragile and inconsistent pitching staff, without acquiring any solid reinforcements yet this offseason, and he's maintained the status quo of mediocrity/below average offense. Your right, every pitcher on the staff should be completely dominant, and every hitter on the team should have a high OBP. Why didn't Hendry think of this? By the way, the Cardinals were the only team in the NL last season to be top 5 in pitching and top 5 in OBP. So either every other GM in the NL is incompetent or it's not quite as easy as you make it out to be. But I do think you're on to something with this idea of everyone on the roster being dominant players.

The big picture for me is Hendry hasn't built a great team yet, and he's been awful the past two offseasons. Unlike some fans, and apparantly the Cubs management, I'm not satisfied with mediocrity. It's hard to have a great team when you build the team around dominant pitching only to have your dominant pitchers not stay healthy. Not to mention when two of your middle of the order guys can't stay on the field consistently. If Wood, Prior, and Z each make 30 starts this year and we don't win 90 games then Hendry is to blame. But until we can keep our best players on the field I don't think Hendry is entirely at fault. well maybe if hendry relied a little bit more on building a team with a top 5 OBP, we wouldn't have to rely so much on pitching. I'll take dominant pitching over top 5 OBP always. Dominant pitching wins championships not top 5 OBP. You can take the dominant pitching, but maybe since pitching is so fragile, it's not that wise. Regardless, building a one dimensional team is stupid. And if you are building a team based on dominant pitching, you'd be nuts to sign an aging Greg Maddux, and guys like Estes, Rusch, Howry and Eyre. If you want dominant pitching, get dominant pitchers, not a bunch of wild throwers, mediore or worse starters and middle relievers. It's interesting you think we don't have dominant pitchers since we've led the world in strikeouts the last 4 years. Plus we're hardly one dimensional since we we're second in the league in batting average last year. And if Nomar doesn't go down and Corey doesn't tank we'd have been in the top half of the league in runs scored.

The big picture for me is Hendry hasn't built a great team yet, and he's been awful the past two offseasons. Unlike some fans, and apparantly the Cubs management, I'm not satisfied with mediocrity. It's hard to have a great team when you build the team around dominant pitching only to have your dominant pitchers not stay healthy. Not to mention when two of your middle of the order guys can't stay on the field consistently. If Wood, Prior, and Z each make 30 starts this year and we don't win 90 games then Hendry is to blame. But until we can keep our best players on the field I don't think Hendry is entirely at fault. well maybe if hendry relied a little bit more on building a team with a top 5 OBP, we wouldn't have to rely so much on pitching. I'll take dominant pitching over top 5 OBP always. Dominant pitching wins championships not top 5 OBP. It's not an either/or proposition. He has the pitching, and it's been pretty cheap the last few years. Considering that and the payroll he's been given, he should be able to put up a much better team OBP-wise and therefore offensively. Besides the non signing of Giles this year, what more could he have really done OBP wise? Going into last last year we were very strong OBP wise in the infield. We had Patterson in center, we had the whole Sosa situation in right and you had Holla and Dubios in left. What position should he have added OBP too? Now this year, yes Giles would have been perfect in right, but who knows if he was ever leaving SD? We can all come up with a thousand trades Hendry should've made, but none of us know for sure what went on behind closed doors. We're still strong OBP wise on the infield, and he's added a ton of OBP to the CF position. Yes we're weak in right but we're above average in left. We have the potential to be above average as a team in OBP, plus we have the pitching to carry us all the way to the WS.

The big picture for me is Hendry hasn't built a great team yet, and he's been awful the past two offseasons. Unlike some fans, and apparantly the Cubs management, I'm not satisfied with mediocrity. It's hard to have a great team when you build the team around dominant pitching only to have your dominant pitchers not stay healthy. Not to mention when two of your middle of the order guys can't stay on the field consistently. If Wood, Prior, and Z each make 30 starts this year and we don't win 90 games then Hendry is to blame. But until we can keep our best players on the field I don't think Hendry is entirely at fault. well maybe if hendry relied a little bit more on building a team with a top 5 OBP, we wouldn't have to rely so much on pitching. I'll take dominant pitching over top 5 OBP always. Dominant pitching wins championships not top 5 OBP.

The big picture for me is Hendry hasn't built a great team yet, and he's been awful the past two offseasons. Unlike some fans, and apparantly the Cubs management, I'm not satisfied with mediocrity. It's hard to have a great team when you build the team around dominant pitching only to have your dominant pitchers not stay healthy. Not to mention when two of your middle of the order guys can't stay on the field consistently. If Wood, Prior, and Z each make 30 starts this year and we don't win 90 games then Hendry is to blame. But until we can keep our best players on the field I don't think Hendry is entirely at fault.

The big picture for me is, Hendry did a good job in 03 and 04. 2005 was a disaster, partly becasue of Hendry, partly because of injuries. 2006 is yet to be determined. If the pitching stays healthy this year were good enough to win a WS imo.

Myth? It's been shown to be true over and over with this group. They didn't want to get in a bidding war with Giles. They didn't want to add Tejada with AGonz around, they didn't look at Vladdy because they thought their OF was settled. Compete for the division is not the same as win the WS. It's not. It's a clear difference in strategy. The Cubs want to win enough to be in the playoff hunt late in the season, and hope for the best, instead of try and dominate and maximize their chances for the WS. They want several stable mediocre veterans who they know will give you mediocre performances, instead of aggressively adding difference makers to the roster. This is no myth. It's their stated plan. Well, I'll just take your warning to heart and say I disagree with your opinion. Whether we agree or disagree with their philosophy of building a team, I think their goal every year is to win a WS. I think Tejada is overrated anyway so the decision to not sign him in 03 is fine with me. If Prior closes out game 6, or Wood shows up for game 7 the Tejada decison turns out to be correct. We had a good enough team to win it in 03 and 04 imo. It just didn't happen.

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right. It's called the "goodenough" philosphy and it will work on occasion, 1998 and 2003 ,but is not a way for a big money organization to build a championship calibur team. I rank your "goodenough" myth right up there with the myth that Cardinal fans are the most knowledgeable in baseball.

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right. I think the fact that they are top 5 in payroll year in and year out shows they have a desire to win the WS. Now, whether the GM is competent enough to put together a WS team is a whole other debate. But I am 100% confident that Hendry is doing everything he can to get us to a WS. I don't think anyone can debate that. We can debate his moves all day long but not his desire for a WS. And I know everyone is sick of excuses, but injuries really have killed us the last 2 years.

Most of this thread is about people upset with somebody for giving the Cubs a D, when in reality they think they deserve a C. People are upset with other fans and media for pointing out the failures of the Cubs management, and squabbling over arbitrary, made-up, subjective letter grades. I don't see the point. Whether somebody sees it as an F, a D or a C+, it's all a great big disappointment. And some people are going as far as saying that Jim did all he could do, and should not be criticized. So, to answer your question, yes some people are suggesting that they should just build a team to contend within the division, because that's been the Cubs stated goal for 10 years and people are defending their strategy. I find it hard to believe that the stated goal of the organization is to contend within the division. I know MacPhail mentioned that one time in a recent article, but I'm pretty confident his goal is to build a WS team.

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good. It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series. The point is you won't get in the vast majority of the time. It sounds very noble of you to say you don't care, but you should, because without the regular season success, you won't have much of a shot at postseason glory. I only said I don't care if we get in. You almost sound like you'd be happier if we won 94 and didn't get in, than if we won 88 and snuck in. I would be much happier with the cubs management if we won 94 and lost out on the playoffs than 88 and snuck in. I would be much happier as a fan if we won 88 and snuck in. but his point (goony's, that is) is that you don't build a team to compete "within the division", you build the best team you can with the money you have to spend. you don't overspend on mediocrity based on divisional trends. I agree. But has anyone on this board suggested that we just build a team to conted within the division? Everyone on here wants the cubs built to be the best team possible. Some of us just disagree on how that should be done. Which is what makes it so much fun to come on here and argue about it.

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season. The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again. Moderate improvements aren't what a GM should be looking for 4 years into his reign when the team has fallen off a cliff. You act as if my demands for a turnaround are unrealistic. The problem is they shouldn't have been as bad as they were last year, and they wouldn't have been as bad if the GM did his job. I still can't believe how much slack Cubs fans are willing to give this group. They've failed. The team isn't any good. Mediocrity appears to be the goal, and many fans are pissed at those people who want to point these facts out instead of the people who made these facts true. I myself am not cutting anyone any slack. I just actually feel the cubs are good enough to contend this year. Do I agree with all the moves Hendry made? No. But I like the Pierre trade and I like the bulpen additions. If Murton and Cedeno play like we're all hoping they will, and Wood can get back sooner than later I think we can absolutely conted this year.

That's not accurate. They were 9th in '05, 7th in '04, 11th in '03, and 12th in '02. (I don't recall when Hendry started) This is the post I was talking about. I have no idea if it's accurate or not.

I don't sound anything like that, let alone "almost". The point is your chances are better if you win more regular season games. I'm talking about improving your odds. A GM's job is to improve his team's chances of success, because he can't do anything other than acquire the guys who ultimately decide the fate of the team. A GM of a very expensive team should be able to create a very good team. And a GM who has had a top 5 payroll throughout his tenure should have a 90+ win season under his belt at least once, and probably twice. I don't see the point in this question. They weren't a very good team last year, but they peaked at the right time and had the right amount of dominant starting pitching to sneak into the World Series, where they came up short. I didn't see them as a likely 95 win team, or anything close to great before the season (but I did place some money on them to win the NLCS last winter). They were a success in that they bounced back from such a poor start to have a respectable regular season, but they weren't great, by any stretch. Without injuries in 04 we easily win 90+. And our record in 03 after the trade was 38-24. Meaning we we're pretty good those years. Plus didn't someone come up with evidence yesterday saying that last year was the only year we've had a top 5 payroll under Hendry? And with current payroll are we even in the top 5 this year?

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios. Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO. But you listed him as an "improvement", did you not? Yes. Just the same as other clubs recieved credit for better grades than Cubs for simply re-signing their own FAs. That's a pretty disingenuous statement, regardless of the article. If you're bringing him back he's not an improvement, especially at his age and performance last year. I can see his point though. Wouldn't you factor in Konerko and Giles into the Sox and Padres offseason? They're not improvements but they're definitely considered offseason success.

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good. It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series. The point is you won't get in the vast majority of the time. It sounds very noble of you to say you don't care, but you should, because without the regular season success, you won't have much of a shot at postseason glory. I only said I don't care if we get in. You almost sound like you'd be happier if we won 94 and didn't get in, than if we won 88 and snuck in. Let me ask you, do you consider the Astros season last year a success or failure?

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good. It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series.

Who cares how many games we win in the regular season as long as we make it to the playoffs and then the WS? Houston won 89 games last year and made it to the World Series. I think I'd take that over the Cardinals season of 100 wins and no World Series. Would you be dissapointed if you were an Astro fan last year? As long as we get in who cares how many wins it takes?

The club performed well down the stretch in 2003, and despite the choke job in game 6 played well in the playoffs. But one has to understand that that team won only 88 games that year. The reason the Cubs were in position to be one game from the World Series was because the Astros and Cards both had down years, if you remember the Marlins as the wildcard team had a better record than the Cubs that year. We saw the correction of that in the following year, when the team won more games, albeit only by one, but was eliminated from making the playoffs the last week of the season. The point here is that this team was slightly above average in 2003 because it had amazing pitching and a subpar offense. The team performed better the following year using the same formula, largely. Then the pitching took a huge step back with the same offense in place. This is a team that has moved backwards since become a slightly above average ballclub in 2003. -Banghart But what was their record after adding Ramirez and Lofton? If we would have had those two for the entire year we'd have won more that 88 games. So it's not completely accurate to say that we weren't that good becsause we only won 88 games.

so? then we were dead last in a category that's impossible to plan for. we were also dead last in walks taken, which we CAN plan for. the only way we give our guys more chances is by getting on base more, not by giving away outs by sacrificing. i hate the word "execution" when used as a baseball term. execution, to me, is hitting the ball as hard as you can and getting on base. I'm not as worried about walks as I am just OBP. I could care less how we get on base, as long as we get on. But the OBP and walks should be up this year with the additions we've made. That's assuming Cedeno starts over Neifi. you SHOULD be worried about walks. the cubs hit .270 last year, good for second in the NL. It'd be hard to improve on that. our OBP was 11th in the NL. it sure looks like the problem is walks. You're right. I wasn't saying I'm against walks, just saying I could care less how we get on base as long as we get on base more than last year. And with the improvements in center, left, and short we should be closer to middle of the pack in OBP.

so? then we were dead last in a category that's impossible to plan for. we were also dead last in walks taken, which we CAN plan for. the only way we give our guys more chances is by getting on base more, not by giving away outs by sacrificing. i hate the word "execution" when used as a baseball term. execution, to me, is hitting the ball as hard as you can and getting on base. I'm not as worried about walks as I am just OBP. I could care less how we get on base, as long as we get on. But the OBP and walks should be up this year with the additions we've made. That's assuming Cedeno starts over Neifi.

This team lost last year because Wood and Prior missed significant time. Oh, and the manager didn't know how to fill out a lineup card.