Tracer Bullet

If we didn't have DeRosa, I wouldn't mind his .368 career OBP in the 1/2 spots. But we do have DeRosa and I wouldn't be willing to give up what it would take to get Castillo anyway. But "sucks" is a little harsh for a 2B with a near .370 career OBP.

I don't really agree with this. Or at least that there's anything anti-sabermetric about it. There are certain ways to construct a team that are most effective, but it's not like you can just go to the OPS and defense tree and start picking position players. Like you said, what Beane is interested in is getting runs (or saving them) for the best value, regardless of how they are generated, how old the player is, what he looks like, if he's been injured, or is a clubhouse cancer. Sounds pretty sabermetric to me. Anyway, the copy of Moneyball that I have has a new afterword that is pretty interesting (though I don't know when it was added). This sums it up pretty well, I think: I'm guessing Joe Morgan authored that, right?

Because clearly the Cubs have Grady Sizemore as an option. Soriano is an eminently reasonable choice to lead off given the resources at hand. who said sizemore was an option? i'm simply asking what people would prefer if given two options with identical OPS+ : higher OBP/lower SLG or lower OBP/higher SLG So what point are you trying to make? If we had Sizemore in CF and Soriano in LF, are you seeing if anyone would suggest that batting Soriano 1st makes sense?

your dad hates Joe Torre? I thought the implication was rather clear :wink: I think he was trying to figure out why I know MurtonFan is the board whipping boy, but from what I can tell, Torre isn't universally loved by Yankees fans. I only regularly talk to a handful of Yankees fans and rarely about baseball b/c they're loathsome, but the last year or two, the Torre name hasn't always been spoken in praise. So I'm not exactly shocked that MurtonFan's dad is happy to see him gone.

Looks like Wolf is out for this year, so his team will get added to the pool of available players. With cheapseats, that puts us at 8 (if the rest of the teams from last year re-up). So we have at least 2 spots open to other new teams...

If you changed your name to Sunshine McRainbow you wouldn't draw so much attention. How about "Hollywood Meph"

Why is it ok for people to be condescending to Asmodai/Meph/LoK but not the other way around? If Meph had said this, people would up in arms. That's not terribly condescending. Jaxx doesn't appear to be saying LOK is a moron through the sarcasm (assuming that's what it is), he's just indicating that he's unimpressed. If LOK made that statement, it would be condescending because the implication would be that the target isn't smart enough to understand. At least, that's how I took it. How would Meph's be implying he's not smart enough to understand the math, yet Jaxx's wouldn't imply he's not smart enough to understand baseball? I don't really want to get in a thing - it's not a big deal. Jaxx's message seems to say he's unimpressed with the original post. I don't see it as any comment about Meph's intelligence implicit in it. The distinction is, when you lay out a long post with lots of math (that many people would find complex), if you followed it up with a post that sarcastically commented on another's ability to understand the model, the obvious implication is that you're saying they aren't smart enough to understand it. But that's not what happened here. Jaxx's post implies "nice formula, but I'm not impressed." Doesn't say anything about Meph's knowledge (about baseball or otherwise). Again - not a big deal. I just think if you're picking a comment to point out and say "it's not fair - if X said this, he'd get in trouble" you pick one that's worse than this. More venomous comments are posted here by several people on daily basis without any comment from mods. It's just sarcasm, it wasn't particularly mean or spiteful.

Well, at a minimum, the returning players get to keep 3 from their team (as we decided last year). Then, the new teams get to select from the non-keepers in a mini-draft. I think we should leave the rest of the draft undetermined right now, until we see how the league looks after each team has 3 players. My reasoning being, with only 8 teams returning (at most, we could have fewer), there are going to be a lot of great players that aren't kept. Giving the new teams the top picks in two rounds, may be too much. I think we can decide more fairly once we see what those teams are.

Why is it ok for people to be condescending to Asmodai/Meph/LoK but not the other way around? If Meph had said this, people would up in arms. That's not terribly condescending. Jaxx doesn't appear to be saying LOK is a moron through the sarcasm (assuming that's what it is), he's just indicating that he's unimpressed. If LOK made that statement, it would be condescending because the implication would be that the target isn't smart enough to understand. At least, that's how I took it.

If any of the players from last year haven't received a PM from me, please let me know. And if you aren't interested in playing, please let me know ASAP so we can look for a replacement. Thanks.

I'll set it up and send invites to the 3 of you (cheapseats as a new team). But if IMB and/or Dobson can tell me who else here was in the league last year (I'm pretty sure Andy was, but I can't remember the rest), so that I can PM to see if they're still interested, that'd be great. Edit: Found the old thread - IMB, Mark R, Dobson, Andy, Truffle, Wolf, Flames and me - there were 8. Let's try to add 2 more (cheapseats and 1 other). Sound good? Oh - Y! again.

Someone (IMB?) started a keeper hoops league on Y! last year. There were 6 of us, but I can't remember who was who. I think Andy was in it, Dobson...can't remember the rest. Are we keeping that league going? If IMB isn't interested (as I recall, you kind of lost interest midway through the season), I'm happy to run it. I have the league on my Y! profile, so if you remember playing in the league, but can't find your team, I can find it. We should probably add 2 more teams - I think 8 is about ideal for fantasy hoops. And there are plenty of keepers that will be out there - we set it up for each team to only keep 3 guys. Anyway, let me know if you played last year and if not, if you're interested in playing this year. The returning players get first dibs, but if not all of last year's participants want to play, maybe we'll just throw their entire rosters in with all the other non-keepers and let the new teams draft from that lot. Anyone...anyone...

Not if you take everything into account, its really not. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I think what you meant is - if you accept or at least acknowledge all of the premises, it's not wacky. I think it's certainly far for someone to say the lists are wacky because they don't accept the premises. For example, it would have been fairly easy for the Tigers to replace Maggs with a guy like Raburn and it wouldn't have changed their outcome (not making the playoffs). But if you take ARod off the Yankees roster, who replaces him and his production at 3B? I'm no expert on the Yankees farm system, but I think the drop-off results in them missing the playoffs. So who was more valuable to their team? Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily saying that this line of thinking carries the day, I'm just pointing out that the argument could be made.

Sure, it's possible. But from what I heard of him on ESPN (and I admittedly tried to avoid him for fear he'd make me dumber), he hasn't learned much. Lou may be different than he was in TB, but he's got a much different team here than he had there. It's not frequent that 60-year-olds that have had some success doing something the way they've always done it (in this case, managing teams that win) change their ways at that stage of their life. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not likely. And Dusty doesn't strike me as a guy who quickly changes his ideas of how you win in baseball.

Yes, that's one of my questions (though Meph posting that this is each player's worth relative to his team helped with most of my questions): Is park factored in? As others have said, I care less about the "value" of Jack Peavy relative to the Padres than comparing Jake Peavy's performance to the rest of the players in the league in all aspects of the game. But I'd like to see more of the details of the model because it is interesting.

I don't know. Getting out of Lou's doghouse is not easy. Murton didn't do it for basically the entire season after making a couple mistakes in the OF and on the bases early. As long as Theriot keeps up his high SB% and doesn't make a lot of obvious errors (I'm talking muffed balls or throws into the seats - not inability to get to a ball he should), it's going to be very hard for Cedeno to overtake him. Hell, Cedeno put up over a .900 OPS in the minors while Theriot sucked down the stretch, but nothing changed. Theriot's terrible post-ASB OBP of .315 was allowed to hit 2nd (or 1st) basically the entire 2nd half. I don't doubt that Lou thinks winning trumps all. But I do doubt that all of his decisions give us the best chance to win.

Both players are totally different situations. When Theriot was in the lower minors, he was switch hitting - a failed experiment. Ronny is full of potential, I realize that - all I am saying is that you are NOT going back in time to put Theriot on the big league team just so you can prove that Ronny's crappy full season in 2006 would have been better than Theriots, should he have been in the ML's when he was 23. Like I said - we will never know. The reason I doubt it is because Theriot has some idea of plate discipline while Cedeno has none. He had a great season in AAA, and I think that it should help him in the future - but I think they are totally different types of hitters. Cedeno is a lot like Shawon Dunston - he has speed, a little pop, and might be a good Major League SS, but he is not going to take a walk, and probably won't have an OB% over .300, unless he hits over .300 - which is a pipedream. Theriot has some plate discipline, and it wouldn't shock me to see him bounce back with a .280/.350 type season with a lot of runs scored and 30+ stolen bases - if he can hold on to the starting SS job. Basically, Cedeno showed me enough in 2006. He has done nothing at the Major League level to show that he is anything but overmatched at the plate. He is a stupid baserunner, and erratic defensively. We are better off with Theriot unless someone else is acquired through trade. It's pretty simple, really. If, when you're 23, you're putting up pretty crappy numbers in A and AA, you're not going to be putting up good numbers in the majors. To argue Theriot would have put up a .280/.350 line (or whatever) in the majors when he was 23, given the numbers he put up in A/AA when he was 23, is just crazy. There's simply no basis for that conclusion.

I doubt it. Too bad we'll never know. It's probable. When Ryan Theriot was 23, he posted a .259/.353/.318 line at low-A Lansing and a .236/.351/.270 line at AA West Tenn. This is why age is an issue. Ryan Theriot came up to the big leagues when he was prepared to do his best (.326 OBP last year in the bigs!). Cedeno came up at a younger, less appropriate age and struggled in the big leagues. He has since made adjustments (just ask Lou) and killed AAA while Theriot had a .326 OBP in the bigs. And Cedeno was great in a small sample in September while Theriot continued his awful non-June season. Great post, Raisin. "probable" might be understating it just a tad.

When you say "from all the posts" you must have just not read many of them b/c I don't think #2 is true at all. I and others have made it pretty clear that if an improvement is not acquired, Cedeno should be starting. I frankly don't care if he struggles a little in ST either. Theriot could OPS .900 in ST and then suck for 5 months (like the 5 months he sucked this year). I guess I shouldn't have written "from all the posts", but there were some posters who felt that Theriot should start. My point in #2 is that neither player has produced enough at the major league level to be handed the starting job and I stand by that statement. Many people have pointed out that Cedeno is younger and has a higher ceiling, but so far his major league numbers have been terrible. All of this gets back to the question of whether the Cubs can afford to be patient with Pie, Cedeno/Theriot, Murton, and Soto all in the starting lineup while the team tries to contend. I understand your opinion, but to say "everyone can agree that...SS should be an open competition" is just a false conclusion based on the pages of arguments here. Several posters have made clear that, absent a trade, they'd prefer to give Cedeno a long look. How you spin that into SS should be an open competition, so that "everyone agrees" with what is your opinion, I don't know.

Amen. I doubt it. Too bad we'll never know. Are you kidding me? You post random "facts" and then contradict the most basic proposal (in this case - if Theriot was in A/AA when he was 23 and not exactly tearing it up, the proposal says he wouldn't have posted better than a .600 OPS in the majors and you disagree w/ no argument of support whatsoever).

When you say "from all the posts" you must have just not read many of them b/c I don't think #2 is true at all. I and others have made it pretty clear that if an improvement is not acquired, Cedeno should be starting. I frankly don't care if he struggles a little in ST either. Theriot could OPS .900 in ST and then suck for 5 months (like the 5 months he sucked this year).

Actually, if we don't bring in someone from outside, I (and I think several others) are saying Cedeno should be handed the job. And he shouldn't be yanked if he sucks for 2-3 weeks. I think that's exactly what we're saying. Cedeno hasn't done enough to be handed that long of a leash. The Cubs cannot afford to give him 3 more months to struggle when they will have other young players who haven't gotten nearly the shot that Cedeno has that deserve longer leashes (Pie and Soto). Cedeno should be given a good shot to win the job in ST if nobody is brought in, and they shouldn't manage day by day. IMO, Cedeno shouldn't be given any more time to prove himself than Izturis did this year. If we head into next season with only Cedeno and Theriot available to play SS, Cedeno should be the starter and we shouldn't be eager to replace him with Theriot. If we had a league average SS and Cedeno won the battle for the starting gig, I'd be ok with a short leash. But since we can be fairly certain that Theriot isn't going to put up league average numbers all season, there's no reason not to give Cedeno a little more time (maybe not 3 months, I don't know, but more than 2-3 weeks - lots of great players struggle for 2-3 weeks, so you have to expect it from all players at some point).

You don't think we could use another quality starter? I didn't say anything about getting rid of anyone, and I don't base that on the NLDS exclusively. We lost because we didn't hit. If you get the opportunity to add another quality starter, sure, go for it. But the first, second and third thing they do is improve the offense. It is, by far, the most glaring need. If they have money to spend, and spend it on pitching, they would not be doing a good job. I'm all for getting the best players they can relative to the current makeup of the team, whether it is pitching or hitting. That's likely to be on offense for the simple fact that it has bigger holes. But if it came in the form of a pitcher, I wouldn't complain. If it came in the form of a pitcher in lieu of improving the offense, I'll certainly complain (and I'll go out on a limb and say if we don't improve the offense, again struggle to score the 8th most runs, and don't make and go deep into the playoffs, you might complain). That said, if we do nothing but start Soto, Murton, Pie and Cedeno, and they are all better than the production of those positions this year, that might be enough of an improvement. I'd prefer more than that, but I'm not convinced we will add the players we need, rather than more Floyd's, Jones', and Kendall's.

You don't think we could use another quality starter? I didn't say anything about getting rid of anyone, and I don't base that on the NLDS exclusively. We lost because we didn't hit. You're not serious, are you? You realize that the posts you wrote, like a page ago, are still visible to others, right? What's quite clear from your below statement is that you think, based on the NLDS, that we need to improve our starting pitching. In baseball, to "improve" a position in the off season almost exclusively means to replace that player(s) with another, different player. If you meant that our starters needed to pitch better, that might have been something, but that's not what you said. And if that decision is based at all on the NLDS, the only starters that started in those 3 games were Z, Lilly, and Hill. So yes, by clear implication, you argued that at least 1 of those 3 needed to be "improved" (i.e., replaced). I'm sure that once I pointed out the consequence of your suggestion, you realized it was a bad idea. But that is, in fact, what you said. the cubs starting rotation had the 3rd best era in the majors this year and the offense scored the 18th most runs. why would you go after starting pitching instead of offense? I'm assuming you are not serious because I am sure even you watched the NLDS. You don't think it is important to improve the starting pitching? OK, so? The implication from the bolded section is obvious - you nearly explicitly stated that due to what you saw in the NLDS, we need to improve our starting pitching. I'm not sure how you could possibly interpret that to mean anything else. And it certainly cannot be interpreted to mean that we lost the NLDS because of our hitting (which is in fact true, but not at all what you said before). I really have no idea what you're arguing now - we should improve our starting pitching by replacing Marquis? If so, I agree. But that's not what you said before and I'm not entirely sure that's what you're arguing now. You really haven't been very clear on exactly what you're arguing now. To answer your question - I'm not sure we do. I'm ok with Z, Lilly, Hill, Marshall and X (if X isn't Traschel or Marquis - I'm thinking Gallagher, Prior, etc). If we want to add another SP by a relatively minor trade, whatever (again, assuming that isn't an acquisition of a Traschel type). But I certainly don't think we should spend a significant amount of time worrying about improving our starters. Z, Lilly, Hill and Marshall were quite good. And Marquis was much less sucky than I expected (but I wouldn't bank on that continuing). I'd certainly like a little better pitching from Z, but I'm hoping this year was a fluke and he'll be back to the 3.00 - 3.40 ERA and 1.20 - 1.25 WHIP soon.