sonofsamiam

overspending for an overrated furcal is not a great idea. as the most outspoken critic of the possible beltran deal last season, i'm declaring furcal the most overrated FA of this offseason. we don't need speed, we need OBP, furcal's is tied to his AVG, meaning, if he doesn't hit well, he's not getting on base. bring back nomar for cheap, at least his BA-contingent-OBP has been over .400 before. giles is a must have, he's the one we overspend on. he's the consistent run-producer, OBP-bat we've been looking for. drop lofton in CF for a year and forget about corey, without even considering not starting murton in LF at least 140 times next season. I agree with all of this, though I will assert that Furcal has value, and is probably not terribly overrated. Yes, he doesn't walk A LOT, but his OBP has been consistently in the .350 range for several years now. It doesn't really matter how he gets on, as long as he gets on at a decent clip like that. Plus, the steals (and high SB%), range, arm, and power (for a SS) are all nice as well. I agree the Cubs shouldn't overspend on Furcal, and Giles is certainly a smarter way to go, at least for short-term value. But if they got Furcal, I doubt he'd bust. (Unless the police did the busting. Ha-ho.)

This is a perfect example of playing time skewing the numbers. Wright played 159 games at 3B, 10 more than any NL 3B. And he had OK range while doing so. My guess is Lowell would have led there with a full season; he's only 0.4 behind Wright, with 24 fewer games at 3rd. The real question is who do we think will win the GGs? My predictions: 1B: Lee 2B: Castillo 3B: Ensberg? (perhaps as a reward for offense, with no other obvious candidates other than Lowell, who was atrocious on offense) SS: Vizquel (on reputation, plus his high F%) OF: Jones, Edmonds, Beltran C: Matheny P: Maddux (out of habit)

As of 9/20, Neifi was tied for 4th in the NL in SS fielding Win Shares. Furcal was 1st, Jack Wilson 2nd, and Eckstein (yes, Eckstein) 3rd. http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php?search=&linesToDisplay=800&sort=pos&sort2=field&limit1=Team&limit2=Position&leagueLimit=NL Take this measurement for what it's worth -- no fielding metric seems to be perfect. Also, bear in mind that Win Shares are a counting stat, so if you miss time (e.g., like K. Greene did), it will affect your numbers. Still, here are the top fielding Win Share earners at each position: 1B: Lee, Helton (tie) 2B: Grudzielanek ( :x ) (with Castillo as runner-up) SS: Furcal 3B: Ensberg (in a virtual tie with David Bell and David Wright) C: Matheny (with Ausmus, Schneider, and Y. Molina behind him) OF: Brady Clark, Carlos Beltran, Andruw Jones (with Taverez and Edmonds close behind) None of these seem too outrageous. Ensberg is sort of a default leader -- his FWS aren't spectacular, but no one stood out this year in Rolen's absence. Regardless of all this -- I will be both shocked and terrified if Neifi wins the Gold Glove. He's a solid fielder, who is slowing with age.

I think only Pujols and Lee deserve mention for this award, and the fact is they are really about even in value. Pujols is infinitesimally behind Lee in VORP and Runs Created, and final Win Shares are not out yet but my guess is they'll be even or almost even there, as well. Yes, Lee is a better fielder, but at a position which is significantly easier than most other positions, so that's sort of a wash. Basically, IMO, their stats are so close to even, it would not be a terrible thing if Pujols wins, and this is one case where the tie going to the guy on the better team might make some sense. I certainly hope Pujols wins rather than Jones, who does NOT deserve it, regardless of what many of ESPN's "analysts" seem to think. In any case, I think D-Lee is destined to come in 3rd in the final vote.

Did Cobb bat leadoff? I'm pretty sure Cobb batted 3rd, though am not certain. And I concur that Rickey is almost certainly the best leadoff man ever. If Stan Hack led off (and I seem to remember reading he did), then he's got my vote as far as Cubs go.

I agree that it will be of Pendleton proportions. I just think all the writers have bought into the hype (mainly from August). And I'd bet that very few of them even know of Win Shares. The other problem is Pujols has not had a huge September -- .310, just 4 HRs and 10 RBI, which are sadly the numbers the majority of writers look at. Jones might be hitting .213 this month, but he's got those 8 HR and 20 RBI, which I bet the writers pay more attention to. I wish the majority of the voters paid attention to Runs Created, Win Shares, WARP2, etc. But much historical evidence shows that they don't, especially when there isn't a "clear-cut" MVP. I predict a lot of 3rd-place votes for D-Lee, btw, with scattered 2nd and 4th place votes, and a few even lower from the "must-play-on-a-winner" contingent.

Because most writers don't vote off the avg/obp/slg line, they pay more attention to team stats, like wins and RBI. Conventional wisdom. There is taht, and the fact that MVP awards go to players on winning teams traditionally, especially teams that may have had some struggle or highlighted conflict that their superstar player carried them through. Jones will get the NL MVP, because the perception is that he carried his team through all the injuries and served as a role model for the rookies. It ignores the fact that Jones splits with RISP are near Patterson-esque terrible: .209/ .335/ .390 with a .725 OPS. So he has certainly not been "clutch" despite the media hype. Exactly. Jones will win it, and it will be a travesty. Honestly, I'd go with Pujols, Lee, and Brian Giles ahead of Jones.

coughsteroidscough It probably also has something to do with the level of conditioning and medical attention that the players get now. The diagnosis and treatment of injuries has really improved over the last 50 or so years. That -- plus, it's a small sample size. Most of the guys in that earlier era played in incredible favorable conditions for offense. In addition, many of them weren't exactly lousy past 30 -- they just didn't get over 100 XBH at that age. Ruth was great past 30, Foxx won a Triple Crown at 30, Hornsby was amazing past 30, Musial was great in the '50s, Gehrig was great in his 30s until ALS cut him down. Greenberg also lost prime years to WWII. And the other guy in that group, Chuck Klein, played in the best hitters park in the league during the best offensive years the MLB has ever seen. (In 1930 the ENTIRE NL hit .303.) He was sort of the Helton of his time, except without the walks. I'm not saying steroids have nothing to do with the numbers of the past decade, just that most of those guys from the past weren't exactly washed up past their 20s.

If he does it, it will be the 16th season, and he will be the 13th individual player, to have done so: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/XBH_season.shtml It's a pretty impressive accomplishment.

Yep, that Jeff Kent, a man with great support in the clubhouse, and moreover, "a butt-kickin' winner". Corgan's been listening to too much sports radio. And correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Kent nor Biggio has a "big, diamond-covered, world series ring on their finger". Again, it's just another example of somebody making things more complicated. The Cubs don't need butt-kickers who yell at their teammates for trying to pull an 0-2 pitch. They need productive hitters and good pitchers. Right. Plus, Kent is pretty much disliked in the clubhouse. I'd take his bat, mind. Corgan's take on Murton, and leadoff hitters, is also terribly aggravating: Suddenly, he's channeling Dusty. Not that I necessarily think Murton is the answer at leadoff, but these are just not good reasons. Plus, his power seems to be just fine of late.

Goony is right on here. It's very easy to blame something somewhat unquantifiable like fundamentals when there are many quantifiable things that are less interesting to point out. Plus, Corgan completely loses me with this statement: Yep, that Jeff Kent, a man with great support in the clubhouse, and moreover, "a butt-kickin' winner". Corgan's been listening to too much sports radio.

The gutting of cancers wasn't bad. It was the replacing them with mediocrity that hurt. The above is so true it hurts. As far as Farnsworth, we should all know by now that he's effective in odd years and awful in even years. :wink:

Some telling OPS numbers for various Cubs: Hairston .710 Perez .709 Blanco .702 Patterson .625 Macias .614 Zambrano .743

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4424 I'm glad someone is writing what so many of us feel. And the sarcasm/humor within is also much appreciated.

Yep. It's sad. I truly think that Dusty has psychological scars from his playing days that will never be healed. Everything is based on his hurt feelings from 20 years ago. Yet he played regularly at 23 -- and was good. And what young guy took his place on Oakland? Why, budding star Jose Canseco. It's just bizarre....

I pretty much agree with you -- I had never considered that part of it. I think maybe it's because if a team scores more runs than their expected runs based on runs created, that is reflected by Pythagorean record. And since runs created is a large component of Win Shares, players get their numbers rounded up to meet the team wins x 3. I actually e-mailed Dave Studeman with the Hardball Times, asking how Pujols could have 2 more hitting Win Shares than Lee, despite Lee being better than him in virtually every relevant offensive category. Here's the text: (Me) I've got (yet another, I'm sure) Win Shares question how is it that Pujols has a full 2 more offensive Win Shares than Derrek Lee? I look at their individual stats -- Lee has a better OPS (by 0.40) and GPA, has more Runs Created and RC/G, they have about equivalent SB numbers, and Lee's hit slightly better with RISP. Plus, according to ESPN, Busch has been a much better hitter's park than Wrigley this year. Can this all come down to St. Louis having a much better actual record over its Pythagorean record than Chicago? Also, it's interesting that you mention Pujols as pulling away from Lee, while Joe Sheehan today on Baseball Prospectus argues that Lee deserves the MVP. Now, I have no problem with Pujols winning the MVP -- he and Lee have roughly equivalent numbers, and the relative "tie" can be broken based on the team success. But you seem to intimate that Pujols is starting to run away with it, which I don't think is true. Either way, I agree wholeheartedly that Andruw Jones doesn't deserve the award. Sadly, it's sounding more and more like he'll get it. (And meanwhile the drum is beating for Ortiz in the AL.) Good ol' RBIs win out every time... (Dave) Great questions and points. Thanks. You're right that "pulling away" is overstating the case. Pujols now is one Win Share ahead of Lee, and they were tied a week ago. Not exactly "pulling away," is it. But I have to say that I think Joe is being a little silly when he says that Lee definitely deserves the MVP over Pujols. Even I admit that the THT stats don't capture everything, and I don't think BPro's do, either. To me, the stats indicate that Pujols and Lee are pretty much tied and you could vote either way. As for Win Shares, I think there are two things driving the difference between Pujols and Lee. First, as you noted, is a slight difference in the Pythagorean variances. Second, the Cardinals have scored relatively more runs, compared to their runs created total, than the Cubs have. As you may know, Win Shares are based on actual runs scored, not projected runs scored. So Pujols gets a pickup there. Both of these factors would also explain some of the difference between WARP and Win Shares. One other thing: Wrigley and Busch may be relatively even this year, but Win Shares (and our Runs Created formulas) are based on multi-year park factors. And Busch has been primarily a pitcher's park over the last four-five years. Take all that for what you will....

This link addresses the Pythagorean question: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/2004-win-shares-have-arrived See the 6th bullet point. I still feel this discrepancy hardly makes a large difference in a player's eventual Win Shares.

I've read the Win Shares book, and I'm pretty darn sure that a team's wins, in the end, has very little total effect on a player's Win Shares. At the most, it might knock down 1 point or add 1 point, which are pretty minimal. (James states that the difference of 2 or 3 shares isn't much difference at all.) The reason Win Shares work is you can work out each player's numbers using the method first (using the "simple" method that James explains), and then extrapolate them to the team. A little rounding up or down is usually needed, but almost always the total Win Shares before adjusting for a team's wins match up pretty closely with the actuals. That's why it's such a cool stat. I looked it up, and yes, Pythagorean records can have some bearing, but I doubt it would affect a player's Win Shares by more than 1. A great record over Pythagorean still has to be spread around all the players on that team, and vice versa.

That was still better than Morrissey's column saying Ryno should never make the Hall -- simply because he played second base! Anyway, Mariotti has apparently leapt on the Andruw Jones for MVP bandwagon, which should give everyone an idea about his baseball acumen.

As of 8/22, Cabrera was tied for 10th (along with Clemens and Burrell) in the NL with 22 Win Shares. See this Hardball Times link for more. As far as RC per game, he's 4th. Link. Of course, that doesn't take into account park factors, so Helton is No. 3.

Yep. Win Shares, frankly, takes into account just about everything. And as of 8/22, Lee was only 1 WS ahead of Pujols, which is roughly 1/3 of a game better. Those are the only 2 guys that really should be considered. Andruw Jones, as of that date, was 12 or 13 Win Shares behind both those guys. Both Furcal and Marcus Giles had one more Win Share apiece than Pujols. It's sorta ironic -- all the writers love to talk about guys who "do the little things", etc. Well, Giles and Furcal are 2 of those guys, but when it's MVP time, they're totally ignored in favor of the guy who hits the home runs.

22, as of August 22nd. That's a phenomenal total for a pitcher in this day and age with a month left to go.

Pujols' best argument for an MVP was '03, mainly because he played more than Bonds -- Bonds got it for his surreal numbers coupled with SF making the playoffs. Neither Dawson, Sosa, nor Pendleton really deserved the MVPs the years they won them. McGwire probably deserved it more than Sosa, objectively (yes, I hate McGwire and the Cards) -- again, this was because of playoffs. Which sort of makes the point. Of course it's ridiculous that A. Jones will get more votes for MVP than Lee, but the media is dumb. Certainly the Braves success could have nothing to do with very good pitching, one of the best DP combos (both hitting and fielding) in the majors, and many young players who picked up the slack in the wake of injuries. It will be interesting to see if Jones slumps and D-Lee pulls away from both him and Pujols in the numbers. However, if the season were to end today, I think Pujols wins it, and I think the only way Lee wins it is if he actually wins the Triple Crown (which won't happen -- he's got no shot at the RBI title, IMO).

Also in the Trib. (See 8th paragraph.)

By saying this, Cedeno has sealed his fate. Remember Dusty's reaction to Hairston saying he wanted more playing time? Bench city.