sonofsamiam

I think it's pretty speculative for Stone to say the Red Sox "didn't like" Murton. Perhaps they just did what they felt they needed to do to achieve a short-term goal: finishing a huge deal that put pieces in place that were considered necessary to contend for a World Series. And that short-term goal worked out pretty well. I like Murton for the future because he's so outside the mold of the "typical" Cubs hitter. I could actually see him being sort of Grace-esque in the future at the plate; contact hitter for average, good amount of walks, lots of doubles, power numbers are gravy. Maybe (?) we'll find out some day for sure. You'll probably never know exactly what the Red Sox thought about Murton for sure. He's not Babe Ruth or anything, but he has a nice approach at the plate and he swings at good pitches. I've enjoyed watching him, although it's been in very small samples. I'd like see what Murton can do against right handed pitching. All this talk about Murton being the next Mark Grace is premature. He's mostly facing lefties. With Burnitz really slumping, Baker should give Murton a few more starts in left, with Lawton in right. Burnitz could be out of gas. Just for clarification, I never said Murton was the next Mark Grace. But he has an approach to hitting similar in ways to Grace's, which in itself was quite dissimilar from that of most Cubs of, oh, the last 2 decades. I of course agree that Baker should start Murton more consistently, and should have been starting him ever since Hairston got hurt, and some before then. (You don't know if you've got a Rookie of the Year unless you play a rookie.) But of course we all know this isn't going to happen.

I think it's pretty speculative for Stone to say the Red Sox "didn't like" Murton. Perhaps they just did what they felt they needed to do to achieve a short-term goal: finishing a huge deal that put pieces in place that were considered necessary to contend for a World Series. And that short-term goal worked out pretty well. I like Murton for the future because he's so outside the mold of the "typical" Cubs hitter. I could actually see him being sort of Grace-esque in the future at the plate; contact hitter for average, good amount of walks, lots of doubles, power numbers are gravy. Maybe (?) we'll find out some day for sure.

kudos to you for somehow finding a way to bash patterson when discussing a game that he wasn't in the state for. i've been trying to think of a way to do that because i too blame him for last night's loss. the negative energy he left when he was sent down to AAA is still having an ill effect on the cubs. damn him! I'm not just ranting about last nights loss. I'm talking about an organizational philosophy. I only mention Corey as the poster boy of the fact that potential does not make someone a good baseball player and this team needs to focus on baseball players that know how to play the game. I buy that, but can you give me an example of a Cub who is a malcontent, since that's what you called them? I see some guys on that team that aren't fundamentally sound, aren't well-rounded players, or are even somewhat baseball-dumb, but can't really think of any malcontents.

But things sound much worse when you compare him to Chan Ho. That was precisely my point. One can compare stats of just about anyone. Of course, Wood is almost surely going to be somewhere between Park and Johnson quality-wise for the rest of his career. (Hopefully closer to Johnson!)

Chan Ho Park was pitching in LA -- things went downhill after leaving that pitcher's paradise. Anyway, here's another interesting comparison: Randy Johnson through age 29. (And this is with the benefit of his age 29 year, when he was 19-8 and actually a year older than Wood -- but I wanted the starts to be closer.): GS IP BB SO W-L ERA 163 1073 618 1126 68-46 3.78 (Johnson) 174 1097 533 1269 70-53 3.68 (Wood) Surprisingly similar, huh?

Continuing conversation from now-locked post... rynorules said: That's a very fair point. However, I would note that Wood's injuries are an "aggravating" (pun intended) factor... Oh, absolutely. But that's sort of my point. Through age 28, Schilling and Johnson were considered terribly injury-prone and inconsistent, and got a lot of the same type of grief Wood gets. I've always sort of hoped Wood would turn the corner at the same time those guys did, but then again there are many, many examples of pitchers that started great and fell off the table. I do think he has productive, full seasons in his future, though. The recent injuries have been very much magnified by the heightened expectations for the team the last 2 years (which were ironically heightened in large part by Wood himself). As for Soriano -- I dunno. He's sort of the prototypical problematic Cub or the recent past, isn't he? Few walks, good power, lots of strikeouts, not much in the field.

True, except Park pitched in an extreme pitcher's park before moving to Texas. Also, you can compare all sorts of people at various stages of their career -- for example, Wood is much better through age 28 than either Randy Johnson or Curt Schilling were.

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to compare the offensive numbers of the consensus best fielder of all-time at the most important fielding position to those of a first baseman. Just saying. Also, despite some overlap in their careers, Grace played in a much more hitting-centric time. Grace was great and all, but no Hall of Famer.

I can't agree with this -- I think it was the right choice both then and in hindsight. Durham was pretty productive from '83-'87, while Buckner had one decent season in that time and Carmelo had a couple OK seasons amidst a sea of injuries. Meanwhile, Durham was the Cubs 2nd-best offensive weapon on the '84 team, and was still just 26.

I'm thinking of sending this to Phil via e-mail: Phil, I was reading your hopelessly flawed argument about Pujols deserving the MVP over Lee, and I was stunned to see that you mentioned Pujols had more "Runs Created" than Lee did. Then I realized you made up your own "Runs Created", which is essentially completely opposite the real "Runs Created", which Bill James (who I'm sure you revile) put together a couple decades ago. Runs Created measures offensive prowess based on an individual's total contributions. Adding Runs and RBIs (and subtracting homers, whatever) only shows a player's contribution based on the team around him. Is it really Lee's fault that he had to bat behind Patterson and Perez for a month, when neither could get on base to be driven in if their lives depended on it? Just for fun, here's the actual Runs Created leaders in the NL currently: 1. Lee 95.1 2. Pujols 81.1 3. Abreu 77.6 4. Cabrera 68.5 5. Bay 67.7 And here's a link, in case you don't believe it: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=nl&season=2005&seasonType=2&sort=runsCreated&type=sab&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all As you can see, it's not even close. And if you want to talk about team performance, what of the fact that Pujols is surrounded by All-Stars? I think it can be very reasonably asserted that the Cardinals would still be in first place without him. However, without Lee, the Cubs would not even be sniffing the Wild Card -- they'd probably be just behind the Pirates, and looking to sell. Regardless of the argument, I would like to HIGHLY suggest you not use the term Runs Created anymore. That's not the name of the stat you showed, and it's beyond misleading to call it that. On point? I'm sure he'll just delete it (if he knows how), but it'll at least make me feel a little better. I like it. You should send it to him. Yes, Send it plz. That or write up somethign similar and try to get it posted as an editorial. Or something. Sent. Maybe I'll send a revised version to his editor, but I'm sure it'll result in squat. I mean, this is a paper that chooses to plaster Mike Downey on its front page.

I'm thinking of sending this to Phil via e-mail: Phil, I was reading your hopelessly flawed argument about Pujols deserving the MVP over Lee, and I was stunned to see that you mentioned Pujols had more "Runs Created" than Lee did. Then I realized you made up your own "Runs Created", which is essentially completely opposite the real "Runs Created", which Bill James (who I'm sure you revile) put together a couple decades ago. Runs Created measures offensive prowess based on an individual's total contributions. Adding Runs and RBIs (and subtracting homers, whatever) only shows a player's contribution based on the team around him. Is it really Lee's fault that he had to bat behind Patterson and Perez for a month, when neither could get on base to be driven in if their lives depended on it? Just for fun, here's the actual Runs Created leaders in the NL currently: 1. Lee 95.1 2. Pujols 81.1 3. Abreu 77.6 4. Cabrera 68.5 5. Bay 67.7 And here's a link, in case you don't believe it: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=nl&season=2005&seasonType=2&sort=runsCreated&type=sab&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all As you can see, it's not even close. And if you want to talk about team performance, what of the fact that Pujols is surrounded by All-Stars? I think it can be very reasonably asserted that the Cardinals would still be in first place without him. However, without Lee, the Cubs would not even be sniffing the Wild Card -- they'd probably be just behind the Pirates, and looking to sell. Regardless of the argument, I would like to HIGHLY suggest you not use the term Runs Created anymore. That's not the name of the stat you showed, and it's beyond misleading to call it that. On point? I'm sure he'll just delete it (if he knows how), but it'll at least make me feel a little better.

that's why its amazing to me that phil rogers still picks Albert as the 1st half MVP. He is unreal. My favorite part of that is when Phil says that Pujols edges out Lee in runs created. I think "wait, that doesn't sound right." Then in the next sentence, I found out that he was referring to the made-up-by-Phil-Rogers version of runs created. Does he not know that its a real stat? And one in which Derrek leads by a pretty good margin? And that that stat actually means something, while his means close to nothing? :shock: can somebody please take him to the woodshed? (i dont mean really beat him, only in word). somebody right a rebuttle to be posted... Bruce Miles, where are you? You don't have to actually mention Rogers, but a piece on DLee leading in Runs Created would be great... Unbelievably moronic, but I've come to expect this from Rogers. The guy has absolutely no clue at all, and he's a sputtering mess while trying to talk baseball on the radio. Of course, he fits right in writing for both the Tribune and ESPN, who have unbelievable horrible rosters of "talent" considering their high profile. In fact, outside of K.C. Johnson, I can't think of a single Trib writer worth his salt. That's just sad.

Just a question, since I'm not by a TV -- since so many of these pitches are apparently out of the zone, has Dusty made any sort of indication he's unhappy with the calls? I'm assuming he hasn't left the dugout, but does he even appear angry? Backing Corey on this might actually be a good thing....

They both deserve it, but I can see Bagwell getting voted in in the 4th round or something, and Biggio languishing in Vet Committee voting and maybe not getting in. Which would be a shame. Oh, and Thomas and Bagwell should get voted in together.