cheapseats

Point taken. Just feeling irascible. :twisted: Remember when it was rumored that the Cubs were talking to the Braves about a Sosa for Jones swap? But we didn't want to block the development of that Patterson kid. Good times.

And the Sox wouldn't do that deal. Prior alone is projected to be slightly more valuable than Andruw over the next four years, and that's assuming he has a year like 2004 when he only pitched 21 games. And don't forget Prior is 4 years younger and, currently, cheaper. I'm not necessarily arguing that Prior should be held onto at any cost, but I do encourage us not to undervalue him.

According to BP's MORP stat, we're already overpaying for Aramis. Much as I'd hate to see him go, I wouldn't have minded trading him for top offensive prospects as I don't think we're contending in 2007 anyway. That said, even from ownership's perspective, it is a good idea to overpay if it means a playoff run. The extra revenue produced from postseason play (not just ticket sales, mind you) more than pays for some big contracts. Some of the big budget teams understand that. The Yankees in some recent seasons weren't built to break even until postseason.

I would refute that. I've seen some bad play. He takes bad routes, gets bad jumps, and has dropped balls in his glove on multiple occasions. And the arms thing is much more than a small thing, guys take extra bases all the freaking time. According to The Fielding Bible, which trumps all else in defensive discussions (just ask a Cardinals fan), Pierre was 25th out of 35 CF's reviewed from 2003-2005. He's still been below average according to Davenport's fielding translations this year, but he has been better than he was in the past 3 years. So what we're seeing right now might be better than what we'd see in the future.

Even though the fielding bible says his arm isn't as good as Johnny Damon's? And, for the second time, you haven't weighed in on Juan Pierre in RF. I'll ask a third time: how would you like Juan Pierre in RF? So, to be clear, that's just a flat-out guess, conjecture based upon no reviewable data. How many more throws does a CF make? How does the park influence that statistic? How often does a RF actually throw to 3rd? Once a game? Once a series? The park question is very important, but one you don't want to address. Many analysts thought it was a mistake for the Cubs to worry about OF defense in the offseason since the park has little territory to cover anyway. All we need to talk about is arm, really. The fact that it's "debatable" means that it's reasonable to believe that an arm is more important in RF than CF. So if Jones' arm is a liability in RF but isn't quite as much in CF, he "debatably" could be an equal or better player in CF, even though you think, for whatever reason, that he would be a "disaster." al·most (ôlmst, ôl-mst) adv. Slightly short of; not quite; nearly: almost time to go; was almost asleep; had almost finished. Apparently you've confused "almost" with "always." You go on and on about how Jones would make a terrible CF but don't give any evidence as to why. So you're not sure if Arod was ever good defensively, but then in the next breath you say he was fine? Do you even look at what you're writing?

The defensive improvement might not be as dramatic as you'd think. Jones' defense has been declining pretty quickly. That's not to say he'd be a liability, but he's not close to what he was in the late 90's. It's still the type of defensive improvement I'd like, one that comes with good offense. Agreed.

The defensive improvement might not be as dramatic as you'd think. Jones' defense has been declining pretty quickly. That's not to say he'd be a liability, but he's not close to what he was in the late 90's.

No, I don't. It was in Baseball Between the Numbers in chapter 3-2, and I don't know of any online equivalent. Anyway, they found that players who moved from RF to CF experienced about a .2 run drop in fielding, using the FRAA/FRAR stat. But the Fielding Bible, which doesn't have anything to say about the switch from RF to CF, is all that matters, right CardsFan? Or Bill James' 1988 defensive spectrum is authoritative even though fielding metrics are, in your words, "antiquated." I'd hate to take a .2 run drop in fielding from Jacque in exchange for a 100+ point difference in OPS. And for cheaper.

If you notice the defensive spectrum came from Bill James so it wouldn’t it mine. Yes, Carlos Beltran would be an incredible RFer. Do you know who were the best corner OFers are according to Dewan’s book? Carl Crawford and Co Co Crisp – two guys that can play CF. What skills does a RFer have that a CFer doesn’t have? At best you can say a strong arm but even that’s debatable. Its clear CF is much harder to play because good hitters are scare at that position. As for Jones bat why don’t you play A-Ram at SS? Heck, he’d have a good stick for that position. edit - Pods also ranked really high as a corner OFer. I'm just trying to post on your level. While you enthusiastically endorsed Beltran as a RF, why didn't you do the same for Juan Pierre? According to the fielding bible, from 2003 through 2005, base runners took advantage of Carlos Beltran's throwing arm more often than Johnny Damon's arm - and this was especially true in 2005. Would you say a throwing arm is more or less important than CF? And "corner outfielders," while contiguous on the spectrum, do not occupy the same slot. Crisp, Crawford, and Podsednik all played LF. The discussion is about RF and CF. Is your contention that LF is essentially the same position as RF? If not, your examples are irrelevant. "13. Rightward shifts along the defensive spectrum almost never work." - Bill James note the "almost." that's the point here. funny to me how you think counting every single pitch is a good thing, because the details matter, but when it comes to discussing a position shift, details don't matter and generalizations (ie, the defensive spectrum) are authoritative. Why wouldn't I put Aramis at SS? Because he doesn't have any range. However, he is playing 3B as good if not better than ARod right now. Why is that? Perhaps the different positions require different skills.

Nice deal for the Mets. Reyes looks to be having a breakout year.

2 runs is a crooked number. With Izturis, Perez, and Pierre providing stellar up-the-middle defense, 2 runs is enough that the pitcher can make a mistake to one guy and still win the game. Marmol should have made them hit more balls on the ground to the middle of the field. I blame Barrett, too, for not calling a good game that would have facilitated him doing so.

:roll: You can say "John Dewan" and "Fielding Bible" as often as you want. I'm glad you've read it. It is a good book. Perhaps even seminal, a word that surely would make Jim Edmonds snicker. However, even if it is the best resource - and let's agree that it is - I prefer (as does anyone who does research) corroborating sources. The sources, many well-respected whether you will admit it or not, argue that Jones is at least average, and many describe him as above average. EVEN IF he is indeed below average in RF, you fail to discuss intelligently the possibility that he could be at least as good if not better in CF at Wrigley, a stadium in which outfield defense is not as important as it is in more spacious parks like Petco and RFK. I don't recall Dewan having anything to say about changing positions, so I trust that all your arguments on that point - and your only argument is "the spectrum says CF is harder" - are yours. Jacque wasn't moved to RF because he couldn't handle CF. He was moved because the Twins had two players that played the same position. If RF is inherently easier, Juan Pierre should be a better RF than CF, right? Carlos Beltran would be incredible out in RF, wouldn't he? No, those aren't true, because the skills they possess are valuable in CF and not as valuable in RF. And you don't even discuss how Jones' bat might make up for fielding deficiencies - if there were any. What does the fielding bible have to say about offensive performance relative to position? I don't recall anything, so I'll assume your argument, which is: "no way! Jones would be teh suck in CF," is your own. Why take the time to discuss something with you when you don't answer intelligently?

If only he could pitch, too. No one would attempt a sac bunt against him. We could go with four outfielders because he could just fall off the mound to his left and cover the area normally patrolled by the second baseman. Unfortunately, he's coming off TJ surgery, and we know Dusty would work him until his arm fell off.

Well, when you put it that way.... They've refunded in the past, even if you left early. I know the Yankees have, on occasion, done the same thing, even to people who never even tried to go to the game but had unused tickets. Yeah, I remember a rainout last year, and I don't think you even could get a refund until a day or two later - so the people who stuck it out weren't in any better shape than those who did not. I was able to get full value for an unused ticket.

Logic < The Fielding Bible

You couldn't go to today's game? Nope - last year, the Tuesday game in the Padres series was rained out IIRC, and they refunded everybody and the Wednesday ticketholders got two for one. That's really the only way they can do it with a non-division team. I don't think they could play a night game tonight because of their agreement with the city and the neighborhood.

The fielding bible says in the past, all you needed was your ticket stub. They know that because they watched every ticket stub for every rainout of the last three years.

No one is arguing that SS and CF aren't generally more difficult to play; the argument is that there are some players who might perform better at a position deemed more difficult because of skills more suited for that position. Whether you mean to or not, you're basically arguing that if Jacque were a good centerfielder, the Cubs would already be playing him in that position, which is the same sort of dubious argument that some here have used for various purposes, ie: Hendry knows more about baseball than you armchair general managers. If you were so smart, you'd be general managers, too. Todd Walker is not a good ballplayer. If he were so good, why couldn't the Cubs find a trading partner for him in the offseason. Hee Seop Choi was never going to pan out. If he were so good, why did Jim Tracy sit him so often? And as for A-rod, of course performances fluctuate, but if 2 1/2 years isn't a large enough sample size, I give up. I'm done here. If you want to PM, that's fine, and we can discuss what the fielding bible has to say about the war in Iraq, Mel Gibson's anti-semitism, and the level of fecal matter in the Chicago River.

So the Cardinals should fire Mitchel Lichtman now, right? Two points, neither of which you answer: 1) If the Fielding Bible says Jacque Jones is below average and EVERY other metric says he's above average, how do you square that? Do you blindly accept the Fielding Bible's rating without any regard for the others? Apparently so. I guess I should cancel my BP subscription and quit reading Hardball Times. The Fielding Bible is all I'll ever need. 2) You have consistently insisted on applying the defensive spectrum without regard for individual players' skills. Even if you want to discount EVERY metric that says Jacque is an above average RF, you ought to see that his range is consistently well above average for RF. So, even if he gets "bad jumps on balls," he gets to more balls than most RF. His problem? His arm, a problem that would be somewhat minimized in CF. So go ahead and explain about A-Rod and Cameron, OK? First off I like Mitchel Lichtman a lot and I never said his system was bad given the information he had. Secondly he's not currently working for the Cardinals. The fact is "The Fielding Bible" simply blows all other fielding metrics out of the water because they analyzed every single play in the last 3 years. No other metrics you site can claim that. Simply put it’s a seminal book on the subject. ... Jones does not have above average range. A-Rod and Cameron may have declining skills or were overrated in terms of defense to begin with. Why do you think it’s so much harder to find a good hitting SS or CFer? Then I guess I can't have a conversation with you, since "The Fielding Bible" trumps everything. Strangely, though, most research that cites only one source, no matter how authoritative that source may be, is found to be inadequate. If I had used a single source when when doing research as a graduate student, I would not have received my degree. It seems to me that you'd like to have everything as black and white as your avatar, but unfortunately, that's not possible. As for your refutation of Jones' range, just saying "he doesn't really have good range" is inadequate. There are numerous metrics that say he does. Cameron has been a very good CF in San Diego. Did his skills decline in 2005 only to be rediscovered in 2006? If you want to argue that Cameron is or was overrated, go right ahead, but provide eveidence for your argument. Maybe, just maybe, Arod struggles at 3B because range isn't nearly as important as it is at SS, neutralizing one of his greatest strengths. But if you want to argue an overnight decline in skills, go right ahead.

He's good, but he doesn't have the upside of Andy Pratt. I just got a chance to turn on the game. So they are on pace to lose to Juan Cruz. Did they lose to him earlier this year in Arizona(i.e. was he credited with the win)? Cruz shut out the Cubs earlier this year.

He's good, but he doesn't have the upside of Andy Pratt.

So the Cardinals should fire Mitchel Lichtman now, right? Two points, neither of which you answer: 1) If the Fielding Bible says Jacque Jones is below average and EVERY other metric says he's above average, how do you square that? Do you blindly accept the Fielding Bible's rating without any regard for the others? Apparently so. I guess I should cancel my BP subscription and quit reading Hardball Times. The Fielding Bible is all I'll ever need. 2) You have consistently insisted on applying the defensive spectrum without regard for individual players' skills. Even if you want to discount EVERY metric that says Jacque is an above average RF, you ought to see that his range is consistently well above average for RF. So, even if he gets "bad jumps on balls," he gets to more balls than most RF. His problem? His arm, a problem that would be somewhat minimized in CF. So go ahead and explain about A-Rod and Cameron, OK?

I'd hope they're already trying, but it's the Cubs, so you never know.

the Cubs don't know about Orbitz.