craig

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/K/Mike-Kinkade.shtml Kinkade's a career .350-OBP guy in the majors (400+ AB). In his >3500 minor league AB's, he's a career .389-OBP guy (career .325 batting average). He's got quite a spectacular minor league hitting/BA/OBP career. Not much for power or defense. He'll be a useful contributor to Iowa's offense. And if the Cubs need him for some reason, he won't be an auto-out.

I think this is the case. I don't think Fontenot is in the picture at all from the Cubs view. I don't think they like his defense enough to want him anywhere. McGehee is ahead of him at 3rd, Moore is passing him at 3rd, Theriot is ahead of him at 2nd, Cedeno is probably ahead of him (for defensive reasons) at 2nd. And hopefully Patterson will move past him at 2nd as well. To be honest, I'll be rather surprised if Fontenot is still with the organization this year. I can't remember, maybe he could do 2B in AA, I don't think Daytona had much for 2B. McGehee could have an interesting situation as a utility man in AAA. You'd think Moore would be 1st choice at 3rd, Patterson first choice at 2nd. Not sure where McGehee will play. Other variation is that all three of McGehee, Moore, and Eric Patterson might all be bouncing around. Moore could possibly try some LF, maybe even RF, or perhaps even some 2B? Patterson could certainly try some CF, maybe some LF, and if he got some action at 3B that would help him. Not sure if McGehee could play a little 2B or 1B or C. With the possible exception of Patterson, none of those three guys is likely to come up as a full-time starter. They'll each need to crack the league, if they ever do, as bench players. Being comfortable at more than one position increases your chances of that a lot.

I think BA is what BA is, for better or for worse. And that is a reflection of what scouts and scouting directors tell them. Absolutely they don't watch and scout guys that much themselves, so their opinions are not based on their own limited observations. They are simply passing along what they are told by other scouting people in the busiiness. That's useful, to a degree. And if there are certain players who seem underappreciated or overappreciated, that probably reflects the biases or underappreciation or overappreciation of the scouting community, for better or for worse. I agree that they tend to stick with former favorites for a long time, often too long. To some degree that may again reflect sources, perhaps to some it's just BA. Hendry kept giving the love to David Kelton long after there was no actual progress; BA kept putting Kelton top-10 even though he wasn't showing anything. Was BA the dopes? Or was BA just reflecting that in this particular case, Hendry and Fleita were dopes, were unable to adjust their opinions, and kept feeding BA dopey confidence about Kelton? Is it BA that's doped out on Mark Rogers; or is it maybe some of their scouting sources who continue to believe? Or both? The Cubs gushed up Dopirak, but he's produced only in A-. You'd think BA should drop him big-time. But, even after his horrific Daytona, Hendry still put him on the roster, and Fleita still gushed him up as if the Daytona debacle was meeaningless. So, BA's overappreciation for Dopirak may be a somewhat true reflection of their source's overappreciation for Dopirak. Several other thoughts: 1) They cover a lot of guys. So the depth with which they can know each of them is limited. No surprise that they aren't too in-the-know about many of the hundreds of prospects they cover in their book. 2) I think their info is often way old. Especially the further down a guy is in a team's ranking. I recall them still talking about Pinto as a slender projectible when he'd already chunked out extensively. 3) I think for guys drafted high, they start with interst and they tend to stick with those favorites way too long. (Ala Kelton and Dopirak and Brownlie.) Again, not sure how much of that is just BA versus sources. But I think the lower a guy was drafted or the lower he is on their list, the less reliable and the less thorough their info and sources are. They may talk to a whole bunch of scouts about Pie or Guzman or Veal, or perhaps this year about Gallagher. I don't think they'll be quizzing nearly so many about, say, Matt Avery, or Rocky Cherry, or Clay Rapada. The lower you stand on their list, the more likely that the info will be incorrect or that their relative valuation will be incorrect.

I think those are all excellent points, goony. That the injury-risk as a pitcher might be comparable to as an NFL dude. That when his first baseball contract expires, he might be pre-arb, whereas if he signed a 2nd NFL contract, it would be for some money. And that he's already established that he's an NFL-caliber player and will be in the NFL. He may never become a big-league caliber pitcher, either for health reasons or simple performance/control/stuff reasons. I think it will be even harder than you suggested for the Cubs to get him if the decision is based on dollars. I think anywhere in the 1st round NFL would be a better bet. Not unless he'd slip to middle or later 2ns would I expect the NFL money to be definitely inferior. And I'd kinda think that the rush and the excitement and the immediate-big-show for NFL would likely give that the tiebreaker edge unless baseball money (or something else about baseball) is clearly preferable. Back in the Quincy Carter days, I recall thinking about this. Which would be more fun, playing outfield where you'll average maybe 3 catchable balls per game, and where you bat 4 times a game and usually fail in 3 of those; vs QB, where you're active and central in every pplay on offense. Clearly the QB. Perhaps for Sam, it might be different. If you're a star you'll get some balls, but in an average game a 2nd or 3rd receiver might only get a couple of balls thrown your way all game. Whereas a pitcher, when he's pitching he's the center of everything. Neither a WR nor an outfielder have the ability to control a game and be central to everything the way a QB or a pitcher can.

We know Sam didn't actually signed this alleged (but unconfirmed) $7 contract. But we also know that the Cubs could offer him guaranteed money if he was willing to commit fulltime to baseball. The $7 offer was probably exaggerated even if there was something to it. But, let's suppose that the Cubs were willing to offer, say, $5/4 or $7/5 of guaranteed money to Sam. How low in the NFL draft would he need to go for a $5/4 contract (guaranteed) be economically competitive? I'm not sure, but here is a link to the Green Bay Packers rookie contracts from the 2006 draft. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=479350 *AJ Hawk, the 5th pick overall, got $15 guaranteed and a $36/6 deal overall. *College 47th and Jennings 52nd got $3.3/4 and $2.9/4 deals, with $1.7 and $1.5 guaranteed. *3rd rounders got <$1 guaranteed, and <$2.5/4 overall. If Cubs were to guarantee $5/4, that would appear superior to what a mid-2nd round pick would get. The total money is largere, and the guaranteed money would be more than double. How much higher than 47th would he need to go for an NFL contract to exceed a $5/4 Cub guarantee? Two other NFL Q's: Can you pay your picks whatever you like, or are there slot restrictions? In other words, might he slip to mid/late 2nd because of Cub issues, but then have the team that drafts him sign him to late-first round contract anyway? Or will we know on draft day what his contract will look like, more or less? Second, how high does he project to go? I've checked one or two NFL mock drafts, and they still have him in the 20's. Are those unrealistic? Obviously the other question relates to what he'd rather do. The NFL is the most popular game in America. So money comparable, might going NFL be more jazzy than pitching baseballs? Or, being in the NFL for sure seems more fun than pitchingfor Peoria and Daytona and Iowa. Might not the Cubs need to clearly win $$-wise to offset the natural appeal of being immediately in the big NFL show? I suppose the flip side is the health and longevity factor. Average NFL career is 3 years or so? So the probability of getting even a 2nd NFL contract is iffy? (Although higher for sure for a high pick like Sam will be...) Whereas if he makes it in major leagues, he could easily have a 10-year career and make tons. Then I suppose the other factor could be locale. If being local in Chicago is a draw, maybe that would break a tie with getting drafted by New Orleans or Cleveland or something.

This is a serious question: I don't remember my rules well enough. There are rules regarding the trading of free agents, but the details matter. Do any of you know the particulars? Is it that you can't trade a FA before June? Can't during his first year? Can at any time, but if so he can then demand another trade after year is done? What are the limitations, if any, on being able to trade Marquis, perhaps as soon as this summer? If Prior looked good (or at least good enough to hold a rotation spot, even if not as good as Prior prime), and Guzman was making a compellling case, and the other four starters were all healthy, could you open a spot by trading Marquis, perhaps as soon as June or July? By accounts, there were other shoppers interested in Marquis. The concept that he might be tradable is not inconceivable. *It would be inconceivable, of course, if he's pitching at te 6.03-type level (or worse). *But if he's moving along at a 4.3 ERA, for example, might his $21/3 contract look very acceptable to a team with pitching problems? OK, it's almost certainly inconceivable. If he's pitching badly enough that Hendry would shop him, nobody will want him. And if he's pitching well enough so that Hendry could trade him, Hendry probably won't consider that. Probably the only scenario is if the rotation is stuffed, Marquis is pitching decently, Guzman is pitching really well but is still blocked, but despite all those good things the team is still out of the picture. Not too likely.

This is sad, but true. Thanks for signing Marquis, Jim. I honestly don't understand the logic from eithe rof you guys. Are you guys 100% convinced that Prior is healthy or something? That doesn't make any sense. Or that Wade Miller is is certain to be healthy and good? Or that Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, and best-of-Prior-Miller will never miss any significant number of starts? Seems pretty illogical to me. If Guzman is ready to be so good that his presence in the Cub rotation would put the NL on need-to-worry-alert, what would be necessary to preclude him from getting a significant opportunity this year? a) Prior or Miller block him. Certainly if Prior is pitching healthy enough, the decision won't be based on competition. Even if Guzman is throwing better than Prior, Prior will be given the spot. But how likely is it that Prior will be locking down a rotation spot for 33 starts? That's the only way Guzman can be blocked out even if he's pitching really well. That seems so unlikely, I'm not sure it's logical to be so bitter about such an unlikely situation. b) Miller: If a spot is between Miller and Guzman, obviously Miller gets the tiebreaker. But if Guzman is looking so good that it's criminal to keep him in Iowa for a while, how likely is it that Miller will be so good that he blocks him? That seems super unlikely too, given Miller's questionable arm recently, his junk stuff recently, and his disposably cheap contract. If Guzman can't beat out Miller, I expect that will say more about Guzman (negative) than Miller being great. And if Guzman is throwing great, but Miller is still so great that he continues to block Guzman, well woo hoo. c) What if Guzman is pitching great, but one of Miller/Prior are so healthy/great that they block him out of that rotation spot. Would even so unlikely a scenario block a Guzman-pitching-great from getting in? Only if the not only the Prior/Miller great but the Z-Hill-Lilly-Marquis foursome **all** stay healthy. Possible, I suppose. Probable, not hardly. Pitching is tough on pitchers. Z is obviously overdue for the DL. So is Hill. Lilly and Marquis, they are pitchers, so DL can visit them too. Even in the fantasy world where Prior comes to camp with his arm in Cy Young healthy form, so that even a pitching-great-Guzman gets bumped to #6, good #6 starters usually get to pitch.... a lot. I'm no marquis advocate, don't get me wrong. I just think that it's illogical to act as if Guzman opportunity is closed when he's got a clear shot at #6, and the only thing between #6 and the rotation is perfect health of #1-5. When one of those is Mark Prior.

I don't agree with either of these views. I don't think they are in the least jammed up with pitching. Veal is the only notably high-ceiling pitcher they've got, and the low minors especially is thin on pitching. If there's a guy they think is the best guy available, and he's a pitcher, I think they'll take him. If anything, I'd guess they'd prefer a pitcher to a hitter. On the other hand, I think it's entirely reasonable that they'll take whatever they think is BPA. If that's a pitcher, or a hitter, a college guy or a HS guy. I don't think any "win now" urgency is going to bias what Wilken drafts. He's drafted HS plenty often, and if there is a HS guy he likes better than Brackman or whomever, I expect he'll draft HS again. I do agree that if he has the equivalent of a full spring training, that Sam would go to Peoria. And that Brackman, given how raw he is currently, would almost certainly open in short-season ball. My guess is that Brackman's status could be fairly fluid this spring. As great as some of his stuff may scout, it's also true that he had an ERA of 6.35 last spring (small sample) with a WHIP of 2.0. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Andrew-Brackman.shtml College hitters didn't have trouble getting hits off of him last spring. The scouting projection, of course, is that those results don't raise concerns, it was a small sample, he may have switched late from basketball to baseball and not been in pitching shape, and his mechanics were unrefined. So the assumption is that if he's all baseball this spring, that focus and a better sample size should tell a truer story about what he can do. Most likely, after scouts see what they see this spring, and the results, nobody will give a hoot about 28 innings last spring. But, there's also a chance that he could slip fast. Scouts are scouts, for sure. But I've gotta assume results can influence scouting projections to some degree. If he comes back with a 4+ ERA next spring, I wouldn't be surprised to see scouts start to mention not just the gush-gush positive projections, but also to begin mentioning some concerns. All I'm saying is that Brackman may well have the stuff to be a good top-3 pick and to blossom into a great major-league pitcher. But I think his lack of demonstrated success might make him a guy who, if he doesn't demonstrate some actual on-field success this season, might slip much lower than #3.

We'll see. But that's very interesting and encouraging news about the velocity. If his slider isn't that sharp, it's not that sharp. But it's a lot easier to find a way with a 94 mph fastball than when you slider is soft and you're throwing 88.

Thanks for the nice projections and the good analysis. I'd prefer to see Marmol stay in rotation, myself, just for the innings, and because he's got the best stuff of that bunch. If his control took another step forward, he'd have a lot more value in trade as a big-stuff can-pop-into-rotation-now guy than as a stup reliever. Probably his control will never be rotation-caliber, but I know I thought that about Zambrano at one point also. I'd be pretty surprised if Wells was in rotation. He's not going to start in the majors, so if he's viewed as a prospect, join the bullpen, randy. My guess is some Walrond-type vet is in Iowa rotation. Or O'Malley or somebody. I definitely think Gallagher should start at AA, barring an incredible camp. As Tim noted, his control was pretty rough at AA. And with Marquis and Lilly signed, Hill established now, Prior and Miller, Cotts, and Marshall/Guzman/Mateo/Marmol all ahead of him, there is no urgency with him. Let him do his AA thing, and hopefully sustain the velocity gains he made last year while reducing the walks. I'm interested in shaver. The account was that his chips was a minor thing, shouldn't keep him out till December much less May. He has some nice movement, but not so much velocity. If he showed up with a clean elbow and an extra 3 mph, he might suddenly be for serious. AAA and AA both look like pretty interesting rotations, potentially very strong combinations of both potential but also performance. As Tim noted, Iowa could have a very strong pen. Novoa, Marmol, Cherry, Wells (RH) and Rapada, Campusano, Pigs (LH) could be very good. A-ball scene looks pretty unclear. Not enough good prospects to fill two A-rotations, and of course you never know who catches somebody's eye in spring, or who wasn't 100% last year, or whatever. Would like to see Renshaw and Muldowney in there, and effective. Would like to see Avery pitch rotation, although that isn't likely, they rarely move a guy who has any success in relief back into rotation barring forcing circumstances. Would like to get Downs and Billek off the map. Whether Taylor stays or promotes could be interesting. Would like to see somebody improve in some substantial way.

I agree. But we shouldn't go to the opposite extreme and consider it impossible that he *might* contribute. Is it probable that Prior will be a contributor to a winning team this year? Absolutely not. But neither is it impossible. If improbable things never happened, the Cardinals wouldn't have a 13th round draft pick annually among the MVP candidates, or rehabbed Chris Carpenter annually among the Cy candidates. We shouldn't count on or expect anything from Prior. But we should at least keep in mind that it's at least possible that he might pitch productively again. It's only two seasons ago that he made 27 starts and had a 3.67 ERA. Even last year, counting his minor league innings, he actually pitched over 60 innings. Obviously his results were lousy, since his velocity was still rebuilding over most of those innings and he never got his control. Absolutely it isn't likely that he'll be fine and dandy this year. But, neither is it implausible that he might be relatively healthy enough to pitch a lot better than your average #5 starter.

With all respect, I'm not sure I see why Loretta is obviously preferable. 1. He turns 36 this season, and is getting old. 2. I don't believe his defense is very good. I don't have all the defensive metrics, but his range factor (I know, it isn't great, but it's the easy one to find) has been below-average for the last couple years. By almost half-a-player-per-game his last year in NL. I don't think Loretta offers any defensive advantage relative to DeRosa. 3. Loretta has OPS'd at .706 and .707 the last two years. Given his age, I'd guess that his recent output is probably a better predictor of future than what he was 3+ years ago. DeRosa had an .813 OPS last year. He's not likely to repeat that, but neither is he likely to fall was below his career norm and fall down to Loretta's .707 level. I don't think Loretta offers any offensive advantage relative to DeRosa. Loretta appears to be the inferior player offensively and probably defensively. Which may be why he's gotten so little market. And why Boston didn't even consider bringing him back, despite his modest price.

Interesting data, thanks for the synopsis and for the links. One thing that struck me was how bad the back-end performance is, even for the top-half teams. It's common to focus on the front-end. But it's maybe easier to really separate yourself (for the good) at the back end. Easier to have a #5 pitcher who's +1.5 relative to league than to have a #2 who's +1.5 relative to league. League #5 is 6.3, so a 4.8 ERA #5 isn't that implausible, but would give you a +1.5. For your #2 to be +1.5, you'd need to have a sub-3 ERA, which isn't that realistic. Likewise it's easier to be half a run or more better than average #4 than to be half a run or more better than an average #1 or #2. I hope that Prior or Hill shows up and outperforms the average #2 even for the top-half teams. But if the rotation is going to end up significantly above average, I think it's more likely that we'll separate above the norm at the 4/5 spots than the 1/2 spots. It's also a team game, of course. 25% of the NL teams go to the playoffs, but you don't necessarily need a top-quarter rotation. If your offense and relief are above average. Barring a Prior breakout, or Hill or Guzman doing better than I expect, I don't expect an extraordinary rotation. Nor do I expect an amazing offense, or an incredible bullpen. But I think all three aspects have a chance to be somewhat above average.

Cedeno is having a poor winter, and there has been long-standing rips about his lack of plate discpline, etc.. But he's got 15 walks in 143 AB this winter, nothing wrong with that. And IIRC, that's something of an adjustment, since early on he had hardly any. He had only 1 walk during his first 50 AB. So over the last 93 or less, he's taken 14 walks. If walking is the ultimate in offense and the portent of all good things to a hitter, perhaps Cedeno is undergoing a change of heart. Of course, if walking is the ultimate in offense and the portent of all good things for a hitter, that has yet to manifest itself over those 93 AB, since his hitting and slugging hasn't been all that super over those 93 AB. His OBP, slugging, and OPS has changed hardly at all since he converted from 1walk/50 AB to 14walk/93 AB. Still, small steps in the right direction can sometimes pay off later. Or, it could be meaningless and reflect no change in approach or pitch recognition or plate strategy.

Sure I saw his AFL numbers. They were great. But, it's a 15 inning sample size, against mostly AA-level prospects. Great enough to rank ahead of Holdzkom as 40th man, but different from ranking in the top 40. As Tim notes, the Cubs have plenty of record of protecting pitchers who they don't want to put on the immediate 25-man roster. Last year they had Ryu and Marshall. Carlos Vasquez, the dude they included in the Cotts deal, was rostered right out of A- ball. John Webb, Matt Bruback, John Koronka, Felix Sanchez, they roster pitchers all the time who have little chance of making the April roster. Shoot, this very winter they rostered Rocky Cherry. I don't think they are looking to trade Mike Wuertz in order to make room for Rocky Cherry. They roster guys for a wide variety of reasons, depending on the guy. Certainly because they think the guy has a chance to be valuable, whether sooner or later. But not normally with the expectation that he's on the roster right away. I can't remember hardly anybody who got rostered and then placed immediately on the intended April roster the following spring. (Pie is a candidate.) Rapada and Cherry are guys who, if things go well for them, might be ready soon, maybe immediately. It's nice to have guys like that on option at Iowa, can call them up whenever a problem with your intended 25-man roster guys comes up. And those are also guys who might be close enough so that some other team will draft them if unprotected. If they pitch to their best in camp, and the right injuries happen or if Rapada got picked by a real lefty-short team, maybe they'd stick. So you protect them. Wthout going out of your way to clear a spot for them on the 25-man.

Sure. But Hendry's got Murton and Soriano already in place as RH corner outfielders. He's not interested in another. He's stated repeatedly that he wants a *lefty* bat. It's possible eventually that he'll realize he's not getting what he wanted at the price he wanted, so he may go a different direction, and perhaps settle for a RH CF. But not another RH corner.

Kess, your rotation is omitting Rich Hill. He should replace your Guzman/Marshall slot. Rapada is a nice prospect. And I hope he looks so wicked and good that he's capable of being a big-leaguer right now. But he wasn't good in AAA, and his AAA pitching coach gave a different scouting report than you, stating that he was *not* ready. Said that his location and control and release-point consistency all needed improvement. (Remember, he hasn't been doing the sidearm thing for very long.) Your scouting report may be smarter or better informed than Alan Dunn's (who is now the coordinator of minor league pitching). But my guess is that the organization will listen to his evaluation, and intend Rapada to go to Iowa to work on his stuff. Certainly if Ohman gets hurt, or somebody makes a serious helpful trade offer for Ohman he could go, and perhaps Rapada could emerge as the replacement. But they aren't going to be trying to trade any of the lefties in order to make room for Rapada this winter.

1. If you carry 12 pitchers, as is normal, there are often innings for anybody who is getting anybody out. All three could pitch frequently, even if they are all lefties, if they are all pitching decently. Of the three, the one most likely to pitch bad is probably Cotts. If he's pitching badly, so that he pitches only occassionally in junk situations and "rots" on the bench, that wouldn't be a big problem. 2. Eyre has been used extensively as a full inning guy. Not sure why that needs to change. 3. Cotts is lefty and has been used extensively as a situational LOOGY type, but I believe his career splits are pretty neutral. It may be that he'd be fine for full inning work. Or long relief. 4. In Sunday Trib, Rothschild explicitly said that Cotts would get camp innings to prepare him for rotation. If through injury or Miller being rotten it turns out that intended four + Miller/Prior do not fill out the rotation, I believe that Marshall and Cotts are the next layer of rotation candidates. Ahead of Guzman (Iowa), Marmol (relief track) and Mateo. And even if he isn't actually in rotation, Cotts might well function in the 2004 Rusch role, lefty who can spot start, pick up long-relief innings, or pick up some short relief as situations demand. I'm interested in Cotts, but not really much more worried about him "rotting" in that role than any of us were worried about Rusch rotting in 2004 or 2005. 5. In the unlikely event that all 13 pitchers look healthy and good, Prior and Miller and Wood included, Miller and Cotts would probably sit as the bottom pair fighting over 12/13th spots. Miller can be released, his contract isn't large. If Cotts looks not-too-hot, I believe he may still have options left; he might perhaps get sent to Iowa. Or, if you want to keep Miller but can't farm Cotts, he'd be easy to trade. Young lefty, has had some success even if not consistently, some team will give you a prospect for him if you're just trying to clear your roster. I don't imagine his trade value will deviate too far from the Aardsma-level that it had zero games ago.

I wonder if Huff contract relates to Jones market. Perhaps some team thought they'd get Huff for little more per-year dollars than Jacque would cost, and at no cost in talent. Perhaps with Hoff off the board, that might firm up the interest in Jones. Or, perhaps the view is that Huff is a better player than Jacque. If so, the fact that it took Huff this look to get <$7/per (and he had to take it from a non-contender) might suggest that there is no market to not only pay inferior Jacque $5/year but also give up meaningful talent besides.

Thanks for the list and thinking things through. Several thoughts, obviously from my perspective: 1. Pitching is set. There is no surplus or any need to be trading surplus, unless Novoa is so considered. We've got ten pitchers, then Wood and Prior as 11th and 12th, and Miller and Novoa as the 13th and 14th pitchers. That's a surplus only if each of three things happen: a) Miller looks like serious value, b) Miller, Prior, and Wood are all three simultaneously healthy this spring, and c) the other ten pitchers are all healty. The probability of all 13 pitchers being healthy and of Miller looking so good that he's a real value, that probability is too vanishingly small to make any trades based on that assumption. Hendry may be no genius, but he's not dumb enough to assume that all 13 of his pitchers are going to be healthy at the same time, especially when three of them are Prior, Miller, and wood. 2. We need one bench player. An outfielder fits best. But, Hendry has committed CF long-term to Pie, and hasn't been willing to pay very much for a place-holder. At present, the 25th man is Felix Pie. Until he fails or until a place-holder becomes available at a reasonable cost, Pie is the 25th man. Floyd still seems a likely sign, but to large degree he seems redundant to Jones. My guess is either you keep Jones and forget Floyd, or you trade Jones and replace him with Floyd. But roster-wise, I think between the two of them they occupy one roster spot. Of course I may be wrong. If the last spot goes to Floyd but they also have Jones, then the roster is full. If so, that would require a very unexpected solution to the CF puzzle.

This is a goofy discussion. A walk is never an out, and most batted balls are, so of course walks are advantageous. And as kc notes, hits are already double-counted in OPS (counting on both slugging and OBP side), whereas walks count just once (OBP side only). But I think people should be careful in suggesting that a hitter has no control over a ball once hit. Batters have a large range in production via their batted balls. So within the world of contact, there is a world of difference between one hitter and the next. *There is a wide range in how many of those batted balls go over the wall for HR's. And while a hitter can't control all his contact to go over the wall, certainly the ability to hit the ball over the wall with higher frequency is a function of the hitter, not of randomness. I suspect most of us will also agree that a HR is better than a walk! *For balls in play, you can crush one and still be out, and dink another and end up with a hit. So there is a degree of randomness, leading to the scatter in BABIP from year to year. But, there are substantial hitter-based patterns in BABIP. It's a common misconception to suggest that since basically all pitchers have a pretty tight range of BABIP-allowed, that when hitters put the ball in play, that they must all have about the same BABIP. That isn't actually correct. There is variation of course, but there are hitters who consistently trend 30-60 points higher, sometimes more, than what other hitters do. So, there is a large element of control that hitters have over what happens with their balls in play. *The same goes for slugging. There are players who will consistently slug much higher on their balls in play than other hitters. Again, there is a meaningful control by the hitter. *Data shows that there is a substantial difference in BABIP on balls-in-play with no strikes versus with 2-strikes. It makes sense that hitters are trying to defend against the K with 2 strikes, and end up swinging at a lot of bad balls that they hit with less authority. One other aspect on the walk/hit thing: there is a larger range on players batting-average-on-batted-balls (between good hitters and bad hitters) than there is in IsoD between patient, disciplined hitters and hackers. Vintage Bonds is a freak in both cases, of course; he had some fabulous averages on batted balls, while also having some extraordinary IsoD. I'm not saying that walks, pitch selection, and plate discipline aren't extremely desirable and valuable. But the OBP difference between the best and worst non-Bonds walkers in the league is not as large as the OBP difference between the best and worst non-Bonds hitters (in terms of overall OBP or in terms of OBP-on-batted balls). I know Hendry or Dusty made some dopey comment about this during the season. I can't remember the details, but the gist was the view that when you look at the top OBP guys, they are dominated by guys with strong batting averages. And that when you look at any offensive player, even the most walk-effective, walks makes only a modest fractional contribution to their OBP. With a high-level walker plate-discipline guy, even those normally get 3-4 hits per every walk. Duh, what a genius conclusion: walking is important, but hitting is too!

Especially since the goal should not be averageness. .341 was the 17th best leadoff OBP in baseball last year. You had to beat .350 to be top 10. .... You should be disappointed in a .340 OBP out of leadoff. Just like you should be disappointed in a ...an 81-81 record. Yeah, it's kind of acceptable. And his SLG definitely means his overall production will be better than most. But a .340 OBP is definitely at the very bottom of what you'd want at leadoff, and .350-.360 should be what you get. Sure, I agree with all that. But, we know that Soriano is going to bat leadoff. It's seemed to me that with Soriano, the largest complaint about him has always been his OBP. If the worst thing about his game is still average, and other parts are well above average (power, OPS, baserunning, arm...), being average in one aspect but above average in others still gets you beyond 81-81. And, of course, Soriano did come in int he .350-.360 OBP zone last year, which is what you wanted to be in the upper eight. So it's not clear that even in his worst characteristic, that he won't still be an advantage player. Abe was interested in Theriot at leadoff. He might be OK there too. But, it's not like he projects to OBP any better than Soriano, and probably worse. (Given his career IsoD, he'd need to hit around .280 or better to make .340 OBP, and that's not that easy when you don't get (m)any hits via HR.) Obviously we'd like to be above average at every aspect of every player's game. But, we know that's not going to happen. If we're average or below at too many, it will neutralize those areas and players who are above average and settle you at .500 (or worse). But, I think we do have at least a chance to have some real assets, well above average. Soriano overall at leadoff (thanks to power), Aram, Lee, Murton/Floyd/Jones, Barrett, I think we have a good chance to be above average, perhaps significantly so, at C, 1B, 3B, LF, and RF. I think Z is likely to be well above average. Hill has at least a chance, and perhaps even Lilly or Prior might end up being above average. The bullpen has a chance to be above average. We'll see how many of those spots actually stay healthy and produce above average. But I'm pretty confident several of them will. The only spot where I'm pretty certain we'll get below-average production from is SS, and even there it's not clear that with defense considered that it will be much below average. (If Izturis posts a .670 OPS with a .315 OBP, and plays among the top 3rd of SS's defensively, the net position wouldn't be a serious drag.) Obviously we've got a lot of places with a chance to perform well below average. Marquis, Lilly, even Hill, certainly the Miller/Marshall spot, Dempster, SS, DeRosa, CF, and whatever positions that might get injured. We may have more liabilities than assets once guys actually play and the injuries actually play their part. But there's at least a chance that we'll get average or close from the worst spots, well above average at a bunch of spots, and there will be enough well-above-averages to make the composite team well above 81-81.

Career situational stats in lead-off...: Lead-Off (2052AB) .291/.340/.544/.884 ========== I don't have the 2006 numbers, but over the previous 5 years the NL OBP average was in the .328 range. .340 is not a low OBP. It's my view that leadoff should be especially good at OBP, obvious table-setting spot. I forgot how to retrieve the leadoff OBP average, but I know for sure that NL-average leadoff OBP is considerably lower than .340. A good way to not make outs is to hit a HR. But many teams put fast, low-HR guys at leadoff, while putting their best hitters (for OBP as well as for power) in the 3-5 spots. So, if Soriano plays at his career .340 OBP with .884 OPS at leadoff, he will be way above leadoff-norm for OPS, and somewhat above leadoff normal for OBP. Obviously OBP would not be his signature virtue; but he'd be better than league normal. (Personally, I'd put Theriot's over/under for OBP at .340 also.) Soriano had a good last year, and took some more walks. It's possible that he's recognizes some value in doing that, and may do a little better for walks and OBP than his career norm, too. If he was to end up putting up years of .355-.360 OBP at leadoff, that would be a strong asset relative to league normal for leadoff. I think there are some advantages in having Soriano lead off. I know there are multiple reasons why he'd seem better suited elsewhere, and other have (or will) make those points. But there are some positives about using Soriano #1: 1) A lot of guys with plate discipline problems recognize that at leadoff they need to try to get on base, and that a walk has virtue. A 3rd or 5th, the same guy might view his job as hitting for power, and might abandon any efforts at plate discipline. Whatever his OBP ends up being, it may be higher leading off than at any other spot. 2) HR's, even solo HR's, are an efficient way to score runs. Having a large excess of power relative to league-normal leadoff is a plus. 3) Teams look for some power at #3-6 spots. If Sori bats leadoff, you can get somebody else with some power batting 5th. Sori + #5 hitter will likely combine for more HR's than if you used Sori + #1 hitter, in years ahead, since in the latter case they might well content themselves with a no-power leadoff guy in the Pierre/Theriot mold. 4) There is a chance that Felix Pie will become a Cub and become an important component of the team over a number of years. The Cubs always want to have a leadoff man. If soriano isn't it, then there would be a natural tendency to want to have Pie fit that responsibility, one which he seems ill-suited to fit. With Alf leading off, then if/when Pie does arrive, you can bat him 2nd or 8th or 7th or 6th or whatever, for years if necessary, without having a constant struggle of needing him to bat leadoff, but then being dissatisfied when he's sometimes a dysfunctional leadoff hitter. 5) Soriano will hopefully be an offensive asset. He'll get more PA leading off than batting 5th. 6) I like to play with the lead. If Soriano leads off with a HR, that's a nice way to start a game. And, if he leads off with a double, there is less likelihood that some bunting manager, whether his name be Baylor or Baker or Piniella or the next manager(s) after Lou will bunt with Alf on 2nd than if you have some Murton or Theriot-type dude on 1st base. I know this is mostly a Murton board, and there is much reason to think he'd be very nice batting high in order. But I think the Cubs will likely use Murton as a middle-of-the-order guy, and bat him 5th. He's a good hitter with guys on base, a good situational hitter. He's got some power. And I think OBP is quite helpful at #5, since there will often be guys on base already and when he gets on as well, whether by hit or walk, it's conducive to big innings. It's also my hope down the road that if Pie does eventually develop into an effective offensive player, having Murton getting on base at #5 in front of Barrett and Pie will not exactly waste Murton's on-base situations.

Only a couple of posts, including the original, included specific projections. My own expectations differ some: I think Lee, Pie, Murton, Z, Hill, and Miller are all somewhat overoptimistic, and Marquis, DeRosa and Izturis are a bit pessimistic. But it's interesting that goony's projection has the main players combining to OPS over .800 (the original poster's main group averaged out to .820). Goony's 6 pitchers average out to 4.02 ERA; the original poster's projected starters averaged out to 3.99. I don't think the "expected" numbers are way out of line. As I say, I'd adjust some of them, but these are reasonable projections. If those projections were realized, you'd have a >.500 team. Last year the *lgOPS was .798, the previous year it was .770. If the Cubs produce in the .800-.820 range, scoring won't make winning impossible. Last year, the league *lgERA was 4.67, the year before it was 4.27. If the Cub starters are coming in with a composite ERA around 3.99-4.01, that's going to be a substantially above-average staff. (How far will depend whether the league *lgERA is nearer 4.67 of last year or 4.27 of year before). Do those projected numbers suggest a dominant rotation or a dominant lineup? Perhaps not. But they certainly project an overall team that could finish significantly above .500. Obviously projecting numbers like that is, well, just for fun. For all we know Soriano will get hurt and be replaced by Pagan, and Z will get hurt and get replaced by Mateo. Perhaps injuries of some sort will have Cedeno getting 400 AB or whatever. I'm just saying that using reasonable, non-whacko projection numbers, the Cubs could have a chance to have a pretty good team and win more than 80 games, perhaps well over 80.

Thanks guys. So, I was wrong. 17 starts, 62 pinch hitting appearances. More starts than I figured. We'll see. I guess I still see Ward as primarily a pinch hitter, with an occassional situational spot start or injury-based need starts. If Murton is hitting .720-OPS vs RHP, I'd guess Ward could get some starts. If Murton has a bad ankle, or jams his thumb or whatever, Ward could get some starts. But I don't really get the sense that if Murton is healthy and producing vs RHP, that Ward is likely to take many if any starts from him. Jones or Floyd, different story. But I don't think Murton needs to worry much about Daryle Ward.