sonofsamiam

If Cedeno can't earn a job based on one good year, why can Neifi earn the job by default based off of several terrible years? Exactly. Plus, while Cedeno was definitely bad before last year, he was 22 last year. It's not like he struggled through his early 20s and suddenly had a good minor-league season at age 27 or something. And yes, he needs to develop patience, but at his worst he still is more patient than Neifi.

See my previous quote about Sandberg. He started something like 1-30 in '83. I suppose he would have been discarded by the Cubs if the same thing happened today. All of this is coming from 51 spring training at-bats. I guarantee that Neifi had far worse 51-AB stints last year than this, and those are actual, counted games.

If Ronny and Neifi have the offensive and defensive performances you suggest, it would be obvious that Neifi belongs in the lineup over Ronny. I think what people who are in favor of Ronny believe that his weak spring training numbers don't represent what his actual performance will be in the regular season. ~20 games in spring training don't showcase someone's performance as much as 65 games in AAA and an entire winter league. Not to mention 41 games in the MLB with an average of .300. (Yes, small sample size, but no smaller than ST.)

Imagine what would have happened if Dusty were at the helm the year Sandberg started off 1-30 or whatever. Would we have ever heard from him again?

The problem is all this conjecture about Cedeno's poor play is based on ST only. While that is both significant and worrisome, it's a small sample size, considered against his actual performance in the MLB last year combined with his excellent performances of late in every other league. I really hope Cedeno comes out of the gate fast. Over time, I think he can be a near-elite shortstop. We know what we'll get from Neifi, and that's sub-mediocre offense and very good defense. Of course, the sub-mediocre offense will be especially ruinous if he's batting 2nd. Also, who's to say Neifi doesn't come out of the gate batting horribly, as well? Actual history supports that likelihood more than Cedeno starting badly.

From today's Trib: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060330cubsbits,1,6511313.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed It IS a Sullivan article, so maybe it's somewhat out of context. But quotes like this terrify me:

I'm with you. Toolsy means crappy. It's like those scouting reports you read -- "Good baseball body" what the hell does that mean? I care about guys who get on base, score runs, hit the ball with authority. Actually, I don't care if he calls them toolsy, so long as he shows that the ability to get on base -- ie, not make outs -- is a valued skill for the players he acquires, promotes, etc. I've yet to consistently see that. You're right. I'll be glad when he follows "toolsy" with "and gets on base." Even better will be the day (and maybe it will come) when having a good batting eye/patience will be considered a "tool".

Well, I guess I wasn't being objective. :D Seriously, though, good research. You corrected my dodgy memory on their numbers from last season. Well done. We'll see how this season plays out. That's cool. Lee was totally insane last year; it's easy to forget how long he was flirting with the Triple Crown. My guess is this year he and A-Ram will have very comparable numbers, to be quite honest. And my guess is those numbers will be very good.

I disagree with this -- here's why: OPS+: Lee 2001: 113 2002: 131 2003: 135 2004: 114 2005: 177 OPS+: Ramirez 2001: 125 2002: 069 2003: 107 2004: 136 2005: 137 Even taking Lee's '05 spike out of the equation completely (which is sort of ridiculous), he's got a leg up on A-Ram. So you weigh the season and a half that Aramis was injured against him? In years that both were healthy he's quite a bit better. He was better in '01 and (especially) '04, yes. Lee was far better in '05, as we know. And Lee's '02-'03 are right there with A-Ram's '04-'05. Also, it seems a bit unfair to punish Lee for his durability. Over their careers, Lee has a better OPS+ and a better RC/27. A-Ram's great, but up to now I don't see him as being better offensively. I guess it just seems weird to me when people presume that Lee didn't really do anything until last year. He had some very good seasons in a terrible hitters park, especially for a guy with power to the gaps. It's not a question of durability. Durability speaks to who is the better overall player, which is Lee. If you're talking about who the best offensive talent is on the Cubs, it's Ramirez. He would have had a better season that Lee had in the power and RBI catagories last season had he not gotten hurt. Are you serious? Really? Lee had 99 extra base hits last year, which is tied for 16 all-time. Aramis, projected to the same number of games, would have had 78. Fewer home runs projected, as well. Lee had a nearly .100 point advantage in slugging to Aramis. RBIs, yes, A-Ram had a slightly better rate per game than Lee. I'm sure some of this had to do with Lee and his +.400 OBP being on in front of him, of course. What were their numbers the day Aramis got hurt? Aramis had more HR's and more RBI. The projections are skewed by the fact that Ramirez sucked in April and struggled in May. He was unreal in June and July, and was continuing that play into August when he got hurt. First, you've switched the criteria from "better offensively" to using only counting numbers (HRs and RBI), and including RBI, which has a lot to do with players other than the hitter. Second, you absolve Aramis of a lousy start. Would you do the same for Lee's lousy starts of the past? I'm thinking not. Third, yes, Ramirez was hot in June and July, to the tune of 1.075 and 1.038 OPS. However, Lee was hotter in those months -- 1.171 and 1.048 OPS, respectively. Fourth, Ramirez had an OPS of .795 in August, in 81 AB. Lee maintained an OPS of 1.000. Fifth, when Ramirez went down, Lee had a 37-31 advantage in HR, and was behind him by 1 RBI, 92-91. And again, I maintain that Lee's hefty OBP, batting in front of Aramis, as compared to the meager OBPs of the guys batting ahead of Lee, had a lot to do with that. Seriously, there's no way anyone can objectively argue that Aramis was better offensively last year.

I disagree with this -- here's why: OPS+: Lee 2001: 113 2002: 131 2003: 135 2004: 114 2005: 177 OPS+: Ramirez 2001: 125 2002: 069 2003: 107 2004: 136 2005: 137 Even taking Lee's '05 spike out of the equation completely (which is sort of ridiculous), he's got a leg up on A-Ram. So you weigh the season and a half that Aramis was injured against him? In years that both were healthy he's quite a bit better. He was better in '01 and (especially) '04, yes. Lee was far better in '05, as we know. And Lee's '02-'03 are right there with A-Ram's '04-'05. Also, it seems a bit unfair to punish Lee for his durability. Over their careers, Lee has a better OPS+ and a better RC/27. A-Ram's great, but up to now I don't see him as being better offensively. I guess it just seems weird to me when people presume that Lee didn't really do anything until last year. He had some very good seasons in a terrible hitters park, especially for a guy with power to the gaps. It's not a question of durability. Durability speaks to who is the better overall player, which is Lee. If you're talking about who the best offensive talent is on the Cubs, it's Ramirez. He would have had a better season that Lee had in the power and RBI catagories last season had he not gotten hurt. Are you serious? Really? Lee had 99 extra base hits last year, which is tied for 16 all-time. Aramis, projected to the same number of games, would have had 78. Fewer home runs projected, as well. Lee had a nearly .100 point advantage in slugging to Aramis. RBIs, yes, A-Ram had a slightly better rate per game than Lee. I'm sure some of this had to do with Lee and his +.400 OBP being on in front of him, of course.

I disagree with this -- here's why: OPS+: Lee 2001: 113 2002: 131 2003: 135 2004: 114 2005: 177 OPS+: Ramirez 2001: 125 2002: 069 2003: 107 2004: 136 2005: 137 Even taking Lee's '05 spike out of the equation completely (which is sort of ridiculous), he's got a leg up on A-Ram. So you weigh the season and a half that Aramis was injured against him? In years that both were healthy he's quite a bit better. He was better in '01 and (especially) '04, yes. Lee was far better in '05, as we know. And Lee's '02-'03 are right there with A-Ram's '04-'05. Also, it seems a bit unfair to punish Lee for his durability. Over their careers, Lee has a better OPS+ and a better RC/27. A-Ram's great, but up to now I don't see him as being better offensively. I guess it just seems weird to me when people presume that Lee didn't really do anything until last year. He had some very good seasons in a terrible hitters park, especially for a guy with power to the gaps.

I disagree with this -- here's why: OPS+: Lee 2001: 113 2002: 131 2003: 135 2004: 114 2005: 177 OPS+: Ramirez 2001: 125 2002: 069 2003: 107 2004: 136 2005: 137 Even taking Lee's '05 spike out of the equation completely (which is sort of ridiculous), he's got a leg up on A-Ram.

Then, take into account Soriano's .639 road OPS (sorry to beat a dead horse) and it seems even less marginal. The only stat that really impresses me with Soriano is 30 steals with 2 times caught. But, since he has trouble getting on base, that's sort of canceled out.

Soriano's clearly in decline, and his offense has been bloated by playing at Arlington. His Road OPS was .038 worse than NEIFI's last year. That's all that really needs to be said.

Well, let's just ignore the clubhouse thing altogether. It really doesn't matter, as that is both conjecture and impossible to quantify. Soriano's road splits weren't as bad with the Yankees, but it seems those years were his career peak at this point. His '03-'05 road split (probably a more fair indicator) is .768 (with an OBP of .303). Better, but for $10 million? No way, especially with the bad defense included. Incidentally, Walker's is .766 over the same period, with an OBP of .330. I'll take him for 7.5 million less, thank you.

This would be a mistake of colossal proportions. Not because Soriano is a jerk or not a jerk, but because he's tremendously overrated. His Road OPS last year was .639. Neifi's, for comparison was .677. That's right -- Neifi was .038 better on the road than Soriano last year. So what you've got is a guy who has: - Overvalued offense - Mediocre-to-bad defense - Passed his peak - Costs $10 million - Allegedly been a problem in other clubhouses Please say no, Jim, please say no....

and while i don't have any article on hand, he strikes me as the kind of guy that would naysay the whole 'babying the pitcher' talk that started around that time. This may be true. Regardless, he was on the money with this article, and it takes a lot for me to say that about Phil Rogers. Oh, and if anyone wants a touch of evidence about the perils of pitcher overuse, check out the 1980 Oakland A's starters and their subsequent careers. Yikes.

Or maybe the Cubs did a poor job of introducing him slowly to a major league workload, and he would have been fine if he wasn't among the league leaders in pitches thrown so early in his careerm, and wasn't left out there for 120+ pitches so often. Agreed. IIRC, there is actually a fair amount of research showing that it's not necessarily number of pitches in a vacuum, but the suddenness with which a pitcher jumps from few to many pitches, whether over the course of a season or in an individual game. Again, while I think the Cubs organization handles just about anything regarding public relations horrendously (esp. forthcomingness on injuries), I'm going to withhold worry until he misses starts. Remember last year -- this whole scenario played out in a similar way, yet he only missed 1 start at the beginning of the season. He was rolling along just fine until the line drive.

Tired of the soap opera? Yes. Willing to watch Wood walk after the season? Yes, unless this season is dominating. Willing to even let Prior think about walking? No, and it's pointless to even bring that up. He's not a free agent, he's under Cubs control and still a valuable commodity. Rusch isn't anything to write home about and he doesn't take the ball every fifth day, luckily for us, because he sucks so bad. Let's not pretend we'd be happier with 200 innings of garbage than 150 innings of even Prior's B game. At this point I wish the Cubs would stop focusing, or pretending to focus, on having Prior ready for the 2nd game of the year. Just focus on having him ready. It's obvious all is not right. You don't get to mid-March without knowing when a guy will make his first spring training start without there being a problem. If they feel he needs more simulated games, just do the simulated games. Quit BSing us with make believe timetables that you don't even believe in. More frustration on my part in suggesting that Prior should be allowed to walk after this season - I was mistaken on the details of Prior' contract status for next season. Like you, I'm tried of the Cubs BS, I'm also very tried of what appears to be a constantly injuried Prior. If it isn't one thing, its another but, something is always wrong Prior. Here's the thing about Prior, though: last year, he missed only 1 time through the starting rotation at the beginning of the year due to injury. Then, of course, he missed a month due to the line drive off the elbow. If you want to blame him for that, that's OK I guess. However, I was actually surprised that he came back from that as quickly as he did. Remember, Prior still got in 27 starts last year, and enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. Nearly all of the missed starts were due to the freak line drive. All the hemming and hawing and simulated games drive me nuts, too. But I'm going to reserve judgment until the actual season begins.

When you boil it down, doesn't it really come down to wins? If you left it out it wouldn't have changed the way I feel about Wood. I'm sure you know as well as I that a pitcher only has so much control over a W/L, and perhaps you're just baiting. Regardless, Wood had only 1 loss (and in fact only 1 game) in that entire 4-year period where he allowed more than 3 runs. In the losses, he allowed 3 in 6, 2 in 7, 7 in 3 (his one bad game), and 1 in 7. No-decisions were: 1 in 7, 0 in 7, and 2 in 8. Basically, aside from 2 games over a 4-year period, the Cardinals have had a heck of a time scoring any runs off Wood at all. He's held them to a .180 BAA. It's fine if you don't fear, or even respect, him. But sometimes recollections and hard facts don't always match up.

I can't actually remember Kerry Wood being healthy ;) When he was, I always felt like you could count on that one big inning. With our offense vs the Cubs, and Wood and Suppan's playoff history I would. Now before you point it out, I do remember that Wood had a good 2003 playoff with the exception of game 7 of the NLCS. Suppan has gone up against some of the "aces" of other teams and faired quite well. So before he had his shoulder cut on he's had a .500 record against the Cardinals the past 4 years. No Fear. Zambrano I fear. Healthy Prior I fear. Wood.... no Resorting to the W/L I see ... and if I'd left it out?

Really? Kerry Wood's splits vs. St. Louis, 2002-2005: 76 IP 50 H 22 R 19 ER 31 BB 81 SO 2.25 ERA 1.07 WHIP 4-4 W/L Looks like something to fear to me! :wink:

The Importance of context. Sometimes it can be easy to seem how people claim to be misquoted. From the tribune article on Nefi wanting to start: Baker puts a premium on defense, and Cedeno is no slouch himself, but he has to show he can keep the starting job. Baker said Monday that Cedeno has been pressing a bit. He wants Cedeno to "be himself," though Cedeno understands the pressure is on him and left fielder Matt Murton to succeed. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060306cubs,1,1825970.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines Same thing refernece in Bruce's Daily Herald Column http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/cubs.asp Manager Dusty Baker said both players look fine to him. “I see Ronny pressing a little more, I think, than Matt,” Baker said. “Matt didn’t play winter ball, and Ronny did play winter ball. He had a great winter ball. Forget it and go on and be yourself. Every kid’s different. He’s got a lot of people around him who can help him. It’s all part of the learning process. He’ll be fine.” Both accurately reported what was said, but you get two different meanings. In the Nefi story it sounded like Baker was looking for an excuse to bench Cedeno and in the Herald story it sounds like Baker is reponding to a question by saying he isn't worried about Cedeno. I was referring to the Trib quote, as I hadn't yet seen the Herald. As usual, I'm going to take Miles's reporting as more accurate than Sullivan's, and give Dusty the benefit of the doubt on this one. We'll see...

Grissom was never a very good player. He had a reasonably successful career. He had a couple good years, but he was never very good. His OPS+ was only above average 5 times in his career. But most importantly, while the guy was a servicable player in his day, his day is past. He's 39. He was god awful last season. He can't be counted on for anything this year. In 2003, Grissom had 22 Win Shares, and 16 in '04. In '02 (albeit not a full season), he had an OPS+ of 124. He's always had value in the field and on the bases and, while those things aren't as valuable as OPS, they're not worthless. I guess I just disagree with the notion that OPS+ is the defining measure of a player's total worth, important as it obviously is. My point was, he's not that far off of some pretty good years. He could be a pretty valuable bench player, if used properly. Which, of course, is the source of everyone's worry, including my own. I'm not denying he had a good year. I just don't think you're being realistic when you say people are underrating his career. He was below average most of the time. If he was on your team his entire career, you would have been pissed if he started the whole time. Sure he had his moments, but his career was highly unimpressive. And now he's at the end of his career, so nobody should be expecting much out of him. I'm not arguing that his OPS+ isn't that good -- and his OBP in fact is what held him back from being better, IMO. But there are more ways to skin a cat. For example, look at WARP3 -- Grissom's career number is 70.7, with yearly highs of 8.3/7.9/7.4/7.1/6.6. For comparision, Moises Alou (a guy who broke in at about the same time) has a career WARP3 of 70.1, with yearly highs of 9.0/6.9/6.5/5.9/5.8. Alou is certainly a better hitter than Grissom, of course, but Grissom closes the gap when you take in everything else. And I think it's worth something to take in everything else, when you're assessing a career.

Grissom was never a very good player. He had a reasonably successful career. He had a couple good years, but he was never very good. His OPS+ was only above average 5 times in his career. But most importantly, while the guy was a servicable player in his day, his day is past. He's 39. He was god awful last season. He can't be counted on for anything this year. In 2003, Grissom had 22 Win Shares, and 16 in '04. In '02 (albeit not a full season), he had an OPS+ of 124. He's always had value in the field and on the bases and, while those things aren't as valuable as OPS, they're not worthless. I guess I just disagree with the notion that OPS+ is the defining measure of a player's total worth, important as it obviously is. My point was, he's not that far off of some pretty good years. He could be a pretty valuable bench player, if used properly. Which, of course, is the source of everyone's worry, including my own.