Tracer Bullet

very funny, Floyd should play but not every day,he can't physically handle it and by the way Murton had it figured out at AAA, both offensively and defensively. player B isn't Floyd Are you really campaigning for Pagan over Murton?

RBI? Come on man, you're better than that. If I were Lou, I'd hope there was more information available than 120 or 130 ABs. Because you can make a lot of dumb decisions if you base them on small samples. So when I found that other information that said: player A had a .297/.365/.444/.809 line in his first full ML season last year and career MiLB OPS of .851 and a AAA OPS of .921 in 2005 and .977 this year (his last 2 seasons there), and player B had a .701 OPS in 170 ABs last season and a career OPS of .711 in the minors, I'd take player A.

After May, Floyd had 104 ABs (and 9 BBs) and Murton had 105 (and 12 BBs). Technically correct, but I think it's more accurate to say they played about the same amount over the first couple months, don't you?

Neither of those statements is true. Floyd's OPS is 55 points lower than Murton's last year (both his OBP and SLG are worse, it's not just one of the 2). I don't get the better OF comment at all. Floyd's range is horrendous. And by all accounts, Murton went down and worked on his fielding in RF and has improved. Given that Murton was destroying the ball in AAA for a couple months, it makes no sense to keep running Floyd out there (or DeRosa who should be at 2B every game). The stats are "similar" to Murton's last year and far better this year. Murton wouldn't be in this position if he played better early on. In the long run Murton is the better player, but he wasn't able to adjust quickly to right field. But, after seeing Murton look lost out in right, it's easy to see why Lou went with Floyd and stuck with him (production "similar" to Murton's last year) as the team continues to play well. 55 points of OPS (.754 v. 809) is quite a difference, but I guess we just disagree on that. Murton went 1/4 on opening day. Got the next game off, went 1/3 with a walk the next day. Got another day off and went 2/4 the next day. He actually started the next game (the first time this year he started 2 days in a row!), got 2 ABs and got replaced. Got 1 AB in 4 separate games over the next week. Got 2 consecutive starts (2/4 w/ 1 BB in the first game - and 2 RBI; then 0/5) on April 16/17 and didn't start on consecutive days for the rest of April. But when he did (4 more games) he went 2/4, 2/4, 1/3 (1 BB), 0/4. In fact, he started the year 4/11 with a walk and 3 R (idea of a #2 hitter) - that earned him a week off. He was a terrible PH - 0/7 w/ 1 walk, but in his April starts, he was good: .297, with 3 BBs and a couple doubles in 10 games (4 of which he got pulled from at some point). Was he hitting for a ton of power? No, Floyd's not exactly Ruthian this year. 10 starts in April counts as a fair shot? And just so we're clear - his .608 OPS in April was not good. But in May, he responded with a .295/.377/.426 line (.803 OPS). He walked a bit more (8 in 61 ABs) and had more power (5 doubles and a HR in 61 ABs). Based on that, he deserved what he got (sent to AAA)?

So if he gets a hit in his PH appearance, he's "earned" a chance to start the next game. If he goes 2/3 with a double and an RBI - maybe he gets another start or two. If he goes 0/4 with 2 Ks - he sucks and it's back to the farm. Doesn't seem like a logical way to run a team. Not that I think that's really what Lou's doing, but that seems to be what you're suggesting. Murton struggled early, his past performance was ignored and he was banished to AAA. He performed very well there, so he was recalled and put in a PH role, even though the starter isn't performing. Lou's excuses for not starting him this weekend are crap. Seems to me he's either the subject of a lot of trade discussion or Lou doesn't like him much. Patience. He will get opportunities and if Floyd is really as fragile as you say, he will get opportunities quickly. Success isn't a straight line for many--if he can really do it, he will get his chance, and soon. In fact, I think he will probably get at least one start this week. This is the plight of all subs--they need to perform as a sub to get a chance to play more. If he does, he will. First - I didn't say Floyd was fragile. I said he wasn't performing very well. Second - he really can do it. In fact, he did it last year. He outperformed Floyd in 2006. His 2006 numbers are better than Floyd's current numbers. His performance in AAA this year strongly suggests that he'll outperform Floyd now if given a full time job. 1 start a week is no way to determine if a guy is playing well. He shouldn't be a sub - he should be starting. His slow start to this season shouldn't have done him in. But it did - so he went to AAA and showed that he still has it. It's earned him a couple PH chances and maybe a start against a LHP (unless Lou comes up with another excuse). When the alternative is what Floyd has given us, there's no reason not to start Murton everyday.

So if he gets a hit in his PH appearance, he's "earned" a chance to start the next game. If he goes 2/3 with a double and an RBI - maybe he gets another start or two. If he goes 0/4 with 2 Ks - he sucks and it's back to the farm. Doesn't seem like a logical way to run a team. Not that I think that's really what Lou's doing, but that seems to be what you're suggesting. Murton struggled early, his past performance was ignored and he was banished to AAA. He performed very well there, so he was recalled and put in a PH role, even though the starter isn't performing. Lou's excuses for not starting him this weekend are crap. Seems to me he's either the subject of a lot of trade discussion or Lou doesn't like him much.

So you're saying there's a chance... As for the rumor - meh. For some reason, I just don't think Hendry will get KGJr. If not, Seattle is better than an NL team not in Chicago.

why? It's not tryout camp. He failed early and why should he replace anyone? exactly. Murton was brought up to be a pinchhitter and an occassional starter. That is what he should be unless he proves himself differently. How exactly is Murton supposed to prove himself when he gets 8 AB's a week (which is about what he would get as "a pinchhitter and an occasional starter")? That is the hue and cry of every bench player. Everybody can't start every day. You prove yourself when given a starting position at the start of this year (he failed here) and you prove yourself when given limited at-bats by hitting well. Murton will get more at-bats if he hits well in the at-bats he gets. Patience and quality will rise to the top. I said the same thing with everybody's favorite--Choi--that if he was really a quality guy, the cream would rise to the top. It never did. If Murton is a big time hitter--he will show it and get more at-bats. But he doesn't have to be a "big time hitter" - he just has to be better than Floyd, Pagan, Fontenot (the result of Fontenot starting at 2B appears to be DeRosa in RF). Based on last year's full season - he is. Based on his minor league career numbers and especially the last 2 months at AAA - he is. Based on his age - he's likely to improve. Based on Floyd's age, he's likely to perform worse than his career #s. If we're going to base all our decisions off 1 month and ignore all other evidence (as TT pointed out above), Soriano's gone. Lee's gone. But we're not doing that. We're giving credit to veterans who were good in the past (as we should), but also if they were good several years ago, but not recently (Floyd). Yet, we don't give that credit to young players who produced well as recently as last season. If Floyd was great last year - I could understand giving him the benefit of the doubt. But he wasn't. And he's been bad this year.

Neither of those statements is true. Floyd's OPS is 55 points lower than Murton's last year (both his OBP and SLG are worse, it's not just one of the 2). I don't get the better OF comment at all. Floyd's range is horrendous. And by all accounts, Murton went down and worked on his fielding in RF and has improved. Given that Murton was destroying the ball in AAA for a couple months, it makes no sense to keep running Floyd out there (or DeRosa who should be at 2B every game).

Why even open the damn thread that has Murtons name in it if you have such a big damn problem with it? I think you are the one who needs to get over it, if you dont want to hear about Murton then dont open the damn thread, its that simple, so seriously get over it. Well, I cant get enough of peoples overreactions to murton bashing. I need to write a few of them down and start a collection for a book. Admitted trolling. That's not something you see everyday around here.

That aren't a lot of "stat guys" that put more emphasis on a couple hundred ABs than on years of ABs that say Murton has a much better chance to be a good ML hitter.

When you've got GMs like Hendry and Krivskey involved, it might. Our GM just said last week that he'd look to see how the offense does the upcoming week to see if we need to add a bat or not. I wouldn't put it past Hendry to bring up Murton to showcase him for a couple days. Perhaps I should start a don't trade Murt to the Reds campaign. If it's for Griffey then your campaign would be foolish. Fixed, Dunn K's way too much and has godawful defense for a .300 hitter which Murton is anyway. Last I heard Murt's defense is growing strong. It's funny because you genuinely think we'd be the losers of a Murton-Dunn swap. It's unfortunate that Krivsky doesn't share MurtonFan's views on the relative value of Murton & Dunn. I'm a huge fan of Murton, but come on. At 27, Dunn already has 6 years of ML experience and a career OPS just under .900.

This happened to me a few different times with different guys recently. Sheets went from DL to NA for a day or so when he was actually on the DL. Since I had him on my team's DL, I wasn't able to make the roster move I wanted to. Happened with another guy too (can't remember who) and I ended up just dropping that guy b/c he was less valuable than Sheets. In my cases, it was corrected within a day or two. Typically, if you send an email to their help link at the fantasy main page, they'll get back to you pretty quickly.

We are in a pennant race, so playing through slumps is out the door this year. You either produce or you don't play. Floyd's July line of .324/.343/.667 suggests Lou doesn't really buy into that. Nor does the fact that JJ's terrible 3 months bought him a lot of time in July (though he's produced during that time). Lou & JH seem to allow veterans to attempt to play their way out of slumps whereas young kids get shipped to AAA.

As long as we don't ride Z and Hill until their arms fall off, I'd be ok with a 2003 redux.

TB isn't known to deal guys on the cheap. Any idea what he would cost?

Isn't he DH'ing b/c he's so banged up or bad that he can't really field anymore?

Pie's July OPS: 1.104; 6 HRs I'm not sure how much more right you want him to get. He has no business being in AAA anymore unless we're trying to change his approach (he doesn't take walks - but I don't think he will, I wish he did, but so it goes). BTW - I'm not trying to attack you, you're making some good points (though I don't agree). I just feel the need to point out what I perceive to be errors in your arguments. I agree Pie is tearing up AAA, but it's kinda hard taking out JJ at this point in time... Trade him. Move him to RF and sit Floyd.

Pie's July OPS: 1.104; 6 HRs I'm not sure how much more right you want him to get. He has no business being in AAA anymore unless we're trying to change his approach (he doesn't take walks - but I don't think he will, I wish he did, but so it goes). BTW - I'm not trying to attack you, you're making some good points (though I don't agree). I just feel the need to point out what I perceive to be errors in your arguments.

I agree...if by "right" you mean "lucky." JJ hit .176/.250/.275 during June. Pie was sent down (despite having better June #s: .218/.296/.333), so Lou had no other options and played JJ. It's not like JJ hasn't had a hot month or two in the past. If he can have an .800+ OPS as our everyday CF for the next 2 months - that'd be great. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath. Understood. However, Lou was called an idiot on these boards for that move, and there was clearly a chance Jones could at least give us something, which he has. I hope it continues, but you're right, Jones could easily fall back into a mega slump again. Find where someone called Lou and idiot. The thing is that we can't go back and change history. JJ may have cost the Cubs more wins than he's contributed to but we'll never know for sure. I just don't get "it worked out fine so it must be good" logic. That's not the logic. The logic is, Lou knows what he's doing, Jones has hit well in the past, it's not ridiculous to think he could hit well again. Since you want me to go digging through old posts, here's one: It wasn't a terrible gamble, and it wasn't one Lou shouldn't have made. And the movie certainly didn't end like you thought it would. The proof is in the fact that Jones began to hit again at his career levels, which was not at all unreasonable to project. Jones career: .781 OPS Jones July: .890 OPS Jones is playing way over his head. And coming off his first 3 months, it was a pretty bad gamble. It worked (thankfully, and I'm sure CubinNY is happy to have been wrong, as with many others on this board that had similar concerns), but that doesn't make it a good gamble. Pie was tearing up AAA (and is doing so again). They both struggled in June, but it made little sense to give JJ the starts and send Pie down. Hopefully JJ's July is good enough to get him traded for something b/c I don't want to gamble the next 2 months on him repeating these stats.

Why does Lou deserve credit? Unless he suggested something to JJ that changed his approach or something, I think the credit goes to JJ for having a great month. Of course, if I'm going to tell JJ "great job in July" I also get to tell him "you sucked hard in June...and May...and you were bad in April too." As for Lou's first 2 months - he was overmanaging his butt off to start the season - that was one of my biggest problems w/ him (that and the way he used Murton). He was making double-switches like it was little league and every guy had to get into each game. Maybe that was his way of figuring out the team, but I think he cost us some wins early on. Hendry gave him a pretty bad roster, but he certainly didn't make the most of it early on. Of course, the fact that 2 of his best players (Z and Soriano) were terrible to start the year didn't help.

I agree...if by "right" you mean "lucky." You can play this game if you want, but I guess Lou has been awful lucky with everything since June this year. So I guess he gets all the blame for Soriano sucking to start the season, Z pitching like crap in most of his starts in April & May, etc. I think Lou's made some good moves and some bad ones. I just don't see how you can say giving the starting role to JJ coming off his June was the "right" move. At best, given Hendry's decision to send Pie down, it was the only option Lou had. The fact that a decision worked out, doesn't mean it was the right one. I mean, it's possible that Pie would have bested JJ's .890 OPS if he had stuck around through July. Likely? No, but on July 1, how many people would have bet their life that JJ was going to OPS .890 in July?

I agree...if by "right" you mean "lucky." JJ hit .176/.250/.275 during June. Pie was sent down (despite having better June #s: .218/.296/.333), so Lou had no other options and played JJ. It's not like JJ hasn't had a hot month or two in the past. If he can have an .800+ OPS as our everyday CF for the next 2 months - that'd be great. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Mind you, that's a play that Theriot very well might have needed to dive at just to get to. As such, there's no guarantee he would have made an error. Better range gives more chances to make "errors." Is that kinda like how the best base stealers are also the ones who get thrown out the most? well, sort of, but that doesn't always hold up, and the definition of best basestealer is kind of vague (do you mean high total and high percentage or just highest total or something else?). but yeah, that's the basic idea. Isn't the "best defender" definition vague too? I think it's a pretty good comparison, esp if limited to steals v. range in defense (ignoring arm strength). Is it better to be 10/11 in SB for the year or 40/60, etc? Similar for range - if you get to fewer balls, but handle more of them cleanly, is that better than getting to more, but having more "errors" in fielding them? If it were me, I'd rather have fewer steals & a great %, but more range and more errors. If you get to a ball that someone else wouldn't have a play on, every out recorded is 1 more than the team otherwise would have had and a fielding error doesn't cost you anything (not true for throwing errors, where they usually result in 1 or more extra bases). Obviously, at some point, you screw up so many routine plays that it outweighs the superior range, but I don't know where that point is.

No steroid allegations + magic number 3,000 = HOF. I don't see how being the best player on your team matters. He was one of the best 2B in the business for a long, long time. Plus, come on. Mazeroski got in on .260 BA, .299 OBP(!!), .367 SLG. Nobody can tell me Craig's .282/.365/.434 doesn't blow that out of the water 6 ways to Sunday. Bigs played longer, too. Without commenting on Biggio's qualifications, we're not really using Maz as the baseline, are we?