Fanzones trumpet

You'd be insane to trade Prior for Willis or Sheets. Straight up for ARod is dumb considering financials. A lot of those are absurd, there's only a couple guys who are worth him straight up. How do you figure that trading Prior for Willis would be "insane." Willis is younger, more durable, LH, and dominating. I doubt Florida makes that trade if the Cubs offered it.

Prior is not, I repeat not a superstar yet. In all honesty, he's not even an ace yet. The last two years, he's just been pretty good. If we can get one of the top 3 shortstops in the game plus a serviceable pitching replacement for him and Hill(or whichever prospect), we should pull the trigger and run away laughing. You win with pitching; specifically dominating pitching, which Prior's numbers in 2003, the last month of 2004, and the first two months of 2005 before getting hit with the line drive show him capable of. You don't trade that kind of talent for 30 year old shortstops and "serviceable" pitchers. That kind of package won't get you where you supposedly want to go. IMO, if the Cubs want to trade Prior, they should conduct a fire sale a la the Marlins and sell off their most valuable assets (Zambrano Lee, Ramirez) to the highest bidders for 10-15 blue chip young players. They'd win a World Series quicker that way than with the proposed Tejada trade.

I'm saying that it's quite clear that many factors played into the increased offense, and steroids being used as a catch-all is a big mistake. They were 7th in 2004, but 9th in 2003 and 2005. That's consistently mediocre. I didn't ignore your point. The fact is scoring runs has been a problem for years. It has been a problem because of a lack of walks taken by the team, which led to a lack of OBP. It has been the same problem year after year. But because this team doesn't value walks taken, it's never been fixed. I don't buy the injury excuse. Injuries can be used to explain the one year downturn in pitching a lot easier than they can the consistently mediocre offense. Many factors may have played into it, but I think it's pretty telling that offense dropped dramatically in the year that steroids were scrutinized for the first time. 2003--Hendry inherited a 67 win team with lots of holes and improved it 21 games, including acquiring Grudz and Ramirez. 2004--Hendry improved the team offensively during the offseason by acquiring Lee, Barrett and Walker. He attempted to fix the one offensive black hole mid-season with Garciaparra. The team he built should have won 100 games with good health; they should have won 94 games according to Pyth. even with all the injuries. The offense was plenty good enough to win in 2004. 2005--Injuries are a legitimate excuse; they can destroy a team. Hendry built the team with the idea that he'd have the best offensive infield in the league and above average offense from CF. Three fifths of his infield went down for significant periods, and the CF imploded. Some things can't be blamed on a GM.

Perhaps steroids isn't the catch-all for the improved offensive numbers, huh? Offense has been a big problem every year. It's been a below average scoring team consistently because this team doesn't get on base enough. And this team doesn't get on base enough because this team doesn't draw enough walks. Hendry has completely ignored that problem year after year, which is why this team has had the same problem year after year. Pitching was a problem last year. But hitting has been a problem every year. I don't understand your steroids observation; are you saying steroids didn't have a significant impact on the offensive explosion that was reversed last year? The Cubs scored 789 runs in 2004-7th in the NL, which isn't below average. The major reason it was a problem last year was because of injuries to Garciaparra, Walker and Ramirez, and Patterson's complete (and totally unexpected) implosion, not because Hendry "completely ignored" it. I named you five guys Hendry brought in in the last two years who are excellent offensive players, and you ignored the point.

By all accounts, pitchers were just as into the illegal supplements as the hitters. Again, why are you so willing to accept mediocre offense when the team is using a top 5 payroll? There is no rational reason to advocate sacrificing offense for pitching. I'm simply asking Hendry to address something he's ignored every year that has hurt the team. I'm not asking him to sacrifice pitching. Even assuming that pitchers were just as much into steroids as the hitters, the numbers over the last 10 years suggest that steroids was much more beneficial to the hitters than to the pitchers. The payroll is not unlimited; it's a question of prioritizing given the $65 million in sunk costs that are already there. Again, I'm all for improving the offense intelligently. I just think that pitching was a big problem last year. How can you say he's ignored the offense every year? He brought in Aramis Ramirez in 2003, one of the best offensive 3B in the NL. He brought in Derrek Lee the same year. He sacrificed defense for offense at C--a critical defensive position-- by trading Miller for Barrett. He emphasized offense at two more critical defensive positions--2B and SS--by acquiring Walker and Garciaparra.

I don't think it would have been simple to add Greg Maddux to the 2003 team to make it's pitching better. Offense is clearly the biggest problem on the team. Pitching had one down year in the past 3. Offense has been bad every year. They have already addressed pitching, and are supposedly still focusing on pitching, but offense has been ignored, to the point that one of the most important spots on this team is absolutely vacant, with no signs for improvement coming. Using last year's WS teams as your basis for a change in the game is extremely weak. After Florida won everybody said speed was the new name of the game. Then Boston won with an enormous attack and average pitching. I suggest you look at a lot more than just the 2 WS teams. Look at the entire playoff group. There were a lot of top offenses in that group, and there are always a lot of top offenses in that group. There will always be a lot of top offenses in that group. It's unnecessary to promote a strategy that focuses almost exclusively on preventing runs. There is no one way to win, but greatness on both sides of the lines is the best way to go about trying. I don't want them to just have a good offense or just have a good pitching. I can't understand why so many Cubs fans seem content with just good pitching/defense (run prevention) and are willing to ignore the offensive woes. It has always been a fact that you need to score runs and prevent the other team from scoring to win in baseball. And it will always be the case. The Cubs have focused entirely on pitching the past 10 years, and it hasn't gotten them very far. MacPhail's strategy was to draft and otherwise acquire a plethora of young arms, then trade or sign bats when those arms were ready. After 10 years, it's about time the Cubs start thinking about scoring runs. You're dead wrong on Boston 2004; they had the 3rd lowest ERA in the AL, only .001 behind second place Oak. Not coincidentally, that was the one year in the last 87 that they won it all. I also think you're not according enough weight to the effect that steroids had on the game until last year. I suggest that you if look over the years at the playoff teams--you'll find more examples of top three pitching staffs than top three offenses.

I think you are completely ignoring what I said, and overstating the shift of the game. The Cubs were a top 3 pitching team but 9th ranked hitting team in 2003. Can you spot the area that could have been improved more easily in an effort to improve upon an 88 win season? They've constintently been an upper half (in the NL) pitching team and a lower half hitting team the past few years. Scoring runs has been a problem. It's been a consistent problem, it's been a big problem. I'm not saying ignore the pitching and only improve the offense. Unlike the pitching and defense crowd, I don't think it's wise to narrow your focus, and I think it's absolutely ridiculous to do so when you have the recources the Cubs have. You could have improved 2003 easily by simply replacing Shawn Estes with a decent starter--say Greg Maddux circa 2004. I'm not disagreeing that the offense should be improved. But I understand you to be arguing that the offense is the biggest problem on the team, and I disagree; pitching --both starting and relief--was unacceptable last year, and the Cubs aren't going anywhere unless it's significantly improved. As far as the changes in the game are concerned, you need only look at the two WS teams last year to see the change.

Not really. The pitching was near the top of the league. Certainly good enough to make for a 90+ win season. The offense was mediocre. That's the reason they failed to win 90 wins. You can't really snicker at a top 3 pitching staff, or expect much more. You can expect more than a 9th ranked scoring offense, especially when you have a top payroll. I think you're placing much emphasis on offense at a time whene the game is shifting back to a much more balanced game. As far as 2003 is concerned, I don't think it's a stretch to say that if the Cubs had replaced Shawn Estes and his 5.73 e.r.a with a decent 4-4.25 e.r.a. 5th starter, they would have exceeded 90 wins.

Prior Wood and Zambrano were all healthy and effective in 2003, and it led to an 88 win team. Why? Because the offense was mediocre due almost exclusively to the low BB/OBP numbers. "Almost exclusively?" Didn't Shawn Estes, Antonio Alfonseca and a poor first two months from Clement have a lot to do with it?

What bidding war? Between the Cubs and Braves? If he reports are to be believed, the Yanks and others are involved in the Giles sweepstakes. I'd say that's very different than the Furcal situation. The Mets are involved. If you are willing to even consider a 5/50 for Furcal, but won't get in on the Giles talks while the numbers are still in the 3/30 range, you're just a plain old incompetent GM. exactly. why is 5/50 ok for a career .757 OPS, but 3/30ish is not ok for a career .955 OPS? nonsense. i guess hendry only wants to get in a bidding war if it's against himself. Because OPS isn't all there is in baseball. Because defense is important up the middle. See Chicago White Sox. Because Furcal is an excellent defensive player at an important defensive position who's just coming into his prime while Giles doesn't play an important defensive position and is past his prime.

Stone also said one more thing, which was obvious, but encouraging: Jim Hendry wants to have a good offseason. He is motivated and positioned well for 4 reasons: (1) has more than $30M to spend (2) has decent young talent in the minors, which he can trade (3) he was 4 games below .500 (4) he finished behind the Brewers I think the better 4 reasons are these: 1. Has more than $30m to spend 2. Has decent young talent in the minors, which he can trade 3. Has trade commodity on the major league level (Walker, Patterson, Hairston, Williams, Cedeno, Murton, Mitre, Novoa, Ohman, Wellemeyer and Wuertz) 4. The team was horrible last year I think the best reason is that the organization's humiliated by the presence of a World Series champion on the other side of town and a fast approaching 100 year drought on its side of town.

That is something I would not consider. The guy could easily throw up a 6+ ERA this year, injury or not. That would mean paying $2m for a worthless pitcher, and then being forced to do it again next year, because he knows he can't get more. No responsible GM should ever put Rusch in control of whether or not he gets to come back a year in advance. It's not like Rusch is the pitching version of Neifi or Macias. While his ERA is usually pretty bad, at least his peripheral numbers are always pretty good. I'd say Rusch was a better bet to put up a 3.50 ERA than an ERA over 6.00. Do you think that 125 pitch shutout he pitched against SD last year might have played a role in his poor performance thereafter (until September). If I remember correctly, he was very good until that game.

Jennings is an interesting suggestion, Fanzone, I don't read that much so haven't heard that before, hadn't thought of him. He would be kind of an interesting guy. I wonder how Rockies feel about him and vice versa? Maybe he's a guy just itching to hit FA and leave Coors and get a decent ERA, so they see a need to transact him before the clock runs out? If so, perhaps you could get him for modest price. If they have a mutual appreciation, tne Rockies aren't worried about either his price or impending FA, he might be pretty expensive in talent. He's real wild, so he'd fit right in with the Cubs wildmen! And he might not be as good as Williams, but would be given rotation privilege regardless of performance based on status. But yeah, if he was available as a rising-salary-impending-free-agent for a modest cost in talent, he might be quite interesting. Jennings was rumored to be on the block mid-season last year before getting hurt. He's got 2 more years to FA; stands to make $4 million in arb. next year. Probably too expensive for Colo., where he's struggled since ROY in 2002. I love him in Wrigley with that sinker, and the track record of guys leaving Coors recently is good (Kile, Hampton, Chacon). Colo. needs a CF to patrol the spacious OF so I'd offer Patterson (and Mitre if necessary). I think Patterson's 30 HR potential and plus defense in that park might tempt Colo.

Wood and Prior have had some injuries, obviously, and Z is due for some. Maddux is old. Williams is hardly a high-quality or safe bet. Still, good starting pitchers cost a mint. With Prior/Wood/Z/Maddux all locked in, and Williams looking pretty respectable, what are some choices? 1) Go after a top-flight guy. After maybe Burnett and Milwood, are there any others available? Do you want to spend the super-excess price that guys like that cost? Starting pitching is always overpriced a ton. Does it make sense to spend the moon on a non-quality guy like Burnett who's injury record makes Wood look Maddux-durable? Maybe, but I can easily imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable. 2) Go after a decent but second-tier guy? Clement, Russ Ortiz, Derek Lowe, guys like that cost $24+ million. Do you want to spend that much for a guy who's unlikely to be more than a middle-of-rotation pitcher, and who you might not need at all if both Wood and Prior show up healthy? Do you want to go $26/3 for a guy who really may be no better than Williams? Maybe, but I can imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable. 3) Go after a limited back-end guy for insurance. But any starter costs too much. Do you want to spend $4-6 per, perhaps for two or more years guaranteed, for a guy who may be worse than Williams, and hasn't the upside of Hill or Guzman or Nolasco, but who by virtue of his contract will then be locked into the rotation regardless or how the kids are developing or that salaried vet is performing? Maybe, but maybe not... 4) Go after a Rusch-type. Doesn't cost too much. Too small a fish to be guaranteed a rotation spot. Given his left hand, could have some function on the team even if he wasn't that hot in relief this year. Isn't a big enough contract or a big enough name to block Williams or Hill or Guzman or Nolasco or Pinto or whomever if they are earning a spot. But is still a decent insurance policy: if Wood isn't healthy, or Prior or Z have trouble, or williams bombs, or Guzman doesn't improve at all, or none of the Nolasco/Pinto/Mitre types really elevates significantly. Go after a potential #3 istater who eats innings, won't cost more than $4 million and won't be tied up for more than one year--Jason Jennings.

Wood and Prior have had some injuries, obviously, and Z is due for some. Maddux is old. Williams is hardly a high-quality or safe bet. Still, good starting pitchers cost a mint. With Prior/Wood/Z/Maddux all locked in, and Williams looking pretty respectable, what are some choices? 1) Go after a top-flight guy. After maybe Burnett and Milwood, are there any others available? Do you want to spend the super-excess price that guys like that cost? Starting pitching is always overpriced a ton. Does it make sense to spend the moon on a non-quality guy like Burnett who's injury record makes Wood look Maddux-durable? Maybe, but I can easily imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable. 2) Go after a decent but second-tier guy? Clement, Russ Ortiz, Derek Lowe, guys like that cost $24+ million. Do you want to spend that much for a guy who's unlikely to be more than a middle-of-rotation pitcher, and who you might not need at all if both Wood and Prior show up healthy? Do you want to go $26/3 for a guy who really may be no better than Williams? Maybe, but I can imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable. 3) Go after a limited back-end guy for insurance. But any starter costs too much. Do you want to spend $4-6 per, perhaps for two or more years guaranteed, for a guy who may be worse than Williams, and hasn't the upside of Hill or Guzman or Nolasco, but who by virtue of his contract will then be locked into the rotation regardless or how the kids are developing or that salaried vet is performing? Maybe, but maybe not... 4) Go after a Rusch-type. Doesn't cost too much. Too small a fish to be guaranteed a rotation spot. Given his left hand, could have some function on the team even if he wasn't that hot in relief this year. Isn't a big enough contract or a big enough name to block Williams or Hill or Guzman or Nolasco or Pinto or whomever if they are earning a spot. But is still a decent insurance policy: if Wood isn't healthy, or Prior or Z have trouble, or williams bombs, or Guzman doesn't improve at all, or none of the Nolasco/Pinto/Mitre types really elevates significantly. Go after a potential #3 istater who eats innings, who won't cost more than $4 million and won't be tied up for more than one year--Jason Jennings.

Question: What's the single most important thing about your leadoff hitter, almost to the exclusion of all others? Answer: OBP. Hands down. Speed is nice to have, but it's truly a secondary asset. So finding a leadoff hitter and addressing our OBP need are two sides of the same coin. Furcal's OBP this year: .348 (career .348). Way better than Neifi, Macias, and Patterson, yes, but is he worth paying a lot of money to get rid of the middle infield that we already have? Todd Walker's OBP this year: .355 (.348 career), with better AVG, slugging, and costs much much less. Nomar's OBP: .320 this year (which is hardly a good indicator), .367 career. Obviously not a leadoff hitter, but still way outproduces Furcal. Also for much less, probably. So replacing Nomar with Furcal does not address our OBP problem (in fact, it makes it worse), and getting rid of Todd Walker takes away one of our best leadoff/#2 hitter options. Signing Furcal is, at best, a lateral move that costs a lot of money. At worst, it's a steep dropoff in production. And another question for you all: if our MI is Furcal and Cedeno next year, who do you think the backup will be? My guess is Neifi Perez. If Nomar and Walker are our MI, I think Cedeno gets the backup job, and Perez walks. The second option seems in every way to be a big upgrade. It's not just about OBP; it should be also about defense at SS and durability. So the real question is whether you (1) spend big bucks for an excellent and durable all-around player in his prime(Furcal), (2) take your your chances with a medium priced, injury-prone defensive liability (Garciappara), or (3) go with a cheap, talented kid who may not give you much offense next year. I'm not sure about choosing between 1 and 3, but I'd definitely avoid #2. You can't necessarily frame it like this, though. Furcal is not for the Cubs taking. There are 29 other teams that might bid on his services. He may not even become available if the Braves decide to keep him. If that happens, you just took option #1 off the board. Cedeno, I'm assuming, is the cheap, talented kid. He's already ours. He's under contract for cheap. We don't have to go out and get him. Doesn't he make a nice replacement if the medium priced, injury prone, defensive liability gets injured? I say yes. He's also a nice late inning defensive replacement. He also spells Nomar frequently to keep Nomar fresh. Nomar is currently employed by the Cubs until the Cubs decide they don't want him anymore. Once they make that decision (pursuing Furcal would all it would really take) and Nomar's as good as gone. Now, Furcal is not an option, Nomar leaves since the Cubs obviously don't feel the need to reward Nomar's loyalty in wanting to stay, and all you have is a unproven, young player who Dusty wouldn't hesitate to bench for Neifi Perez, who would be brought back once it was obvious they have no shot at Furcal or Nomar. Dusty is the manager of this team. It may not work out this way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. There are very few teams with money to spend who need a SS. So if the Braves don't resign him, the Cubs should have the inside track. I don't want Garciappara back as a SS; I don't believe he can play it an acceptable level anymore. As far as Perez is concerned, I'm hopeful that some team will sign him to play everyday. If not, and Hendry believes Cedeno is the real deal, then he should take the decision out of Baker's hands by not re-signing him.

Question: What's the single most important thing about your leadoff hitter, almost to the exclusion of all others? Answer: OBP. Hands down. Speed is nice to have, but it's truly a secondary asset. So finding a leadoff hitter and addressing our OBP need are two sides of the same coin. Furcal's OBP this year: .348 (career .348). Way better than Neifi, Macias, and Patterson, yes, but is he worth paying a lot of money to get rid of the middle infield that we already have? Todd Walker's OBP this year: .355 (.348 career), with better AVG, slugging, and costs much much less. Nomar's OBP: .320 this year (which is hardly a good indicator), .367 career. Obviously not a leadoff hitter, but still way outproduces Furcal. Also for much less, probably. So replacing Nomar with Furcal does not address our OBP problem (in fact, it makes it worse), and getting rid of Todd Walker takes away one of our best leadoff/#2 hitter options. Signing Furcal is, at best, a lateral move that costs a lot of money. At worst, it's a steep dropoff in production. And another question for you all: if our MI is Furcal and Cedeno next year, who do you think the backup will be? My guess is Neifi Perez. If Nomar and Walker are our MI, I think Cedeno gets the backup job, and Perez walks. The second option seems in every way to be a big upgrade. It's not just about OBP; it should be also about defense at SS and durability. So the real question is whether you (1) spend big bucks for an excellent and durable all-around player in his prime(Furcal), (2) take your your chances with a medium priced, injury-prone defensive liability (Garciappara), or (3) go with a cheap, talented kid who may not give you much offense next year. I'm not sure about choosing between 1 and 3, but I'd definitely avoid #2.

The staff is virtually the same as it was in 2003 and 2004, and that was the number 3 team ERA both seasons. There's no reason they can't return to that level, and there's no reason why a top 3 ERA in your league can't win the series. Florida's was worse in '03, and Boston's was worse in '04. I think there are significant differences. Wood was a #2 caliber pitcher in 2003, and Prior was an ace. It's questionable whether either thing will be true next year. Clement was a solid #3 in 2003 and put up a decent e.r.a. in 2004. Maddux probably won't even match the 4.02 era from 2004.

I think that's a terribly flawed approach. Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough. It's not a terribly flawed approach at all if you believe the games is changing (as I do). And even in the steroid era there are plenty of examples of teams making the playoffs with excellent pitching an an average offense. The game is reverting a bit, but we're never going to see the kind of smallball we saw prior to the 90's ever again. As far as the Cubs go, I think you have a better chance leaving the pitching alone and ugrading the offense than vice versa. Of course you want and need to upgrade both, but after watching the wildly inconsistent and often pititful Cubs offense, hitting (OBP namely) has to be first up on the to get list. The numbers this year are pretty dramatic insofar as offensive decline is concerned. And I believe that even with a significant upgrade in offense, the pitching staff is not good enough to win a WS.

I think that's a terribly flawed approach. Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough. It's not a terribly flawed approach at all if you believe the games is changing (as I do). And even in the steroid era there are plenty of examples of teams making the playoffs with excellent pitching an an average offense. It's terribly flawed because with a top 5 payroll there is no excuse to purposefully go into a season with an average offense. A $60-75m payroll team might be forced to go that route, but a $100m gives you the luxury of great offense and great hitting, and there is absolutely no reason to not go for that approach. I would say that with a top 5 payroll there's no excuse to go into a season without a championship caliber team. I don't care how they construct it.

I think that's a terribly flawed approach. Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough. It's not a terribly flawed approach at all if you believe the games is changing (as I do). And even in the steroid era there are plenty of examples of teams making the playoffs with excellent pitching an an average offense.

Pitching, pitching, and more pitching. The need to improve their offense as well as their pitching. You got that right; better pitching and better offense but better pitching first (and second). Both at the same time. How can you really improve this pitching staff this offseason? 4 starting spots are all but locked up. I guess you could overpay AJ and sign Ryan, plus 2 more relievers. That'll give you a very talented, and extremely expensive staff. But Burnett is no more reliable than Wood, you could easily lose both this season, and be stuck with no offense again. For $100 million you better build an all around team. They can be top 5 in Runs scored and top 5 in ERA, without question. The offense has sucked on this team for the last 3 years. The pitching has been good for 2 of the 3. I say it's pretty clear that the lineup needs the most improvement. The pitching can use some reinforcements, but not nearly as much as the lineup needs. Remember, STL had a great staff, and HOU makes people think you can go all pitching at the expense of hitting. But right behind those two were NYM, WAS and MIL in ERA in the NL this year. The Cubs had a worse offense than all but Washington in that group. You have to get more hitting this offseason. I agree with you 100% on getting more hitting (and a better bench too). But I don't believe that the Cubs are going to win the World Series without substantial improvements in the pitching. Personally, I'd go all out after B.J. Ryan to give me a killer bullpen. I think he might be worth 7-8 wins alone. I also expect improvement from some of the young guys in the pen. As far as SP is concerned, I'd look at acquiring guys with talent in bad situations who are too expensive for their teams. Jason Jennings comes to mind.

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs. Yeah, and the Cardinals and Red Sox blew the Cubs away offensively last year. You can find a team to defend your position if you try hard enough. The point is, over time, great OBP gives you a great chance to score more runs, and scoring more runs is good. The Cubs need pitching to, but they can't go out and sign Clemens and Oswalt. And there's no guarantee that the Sox staff will be nearly as good next year. A small step back next season, and that team will suffer big time if that offense stays lackluster. The Cardinals and the Red Sox also had excellent pitching last year. The numbers this year also indicate that the game is moving away from the steroids induced offensive explosion of the late 90s. I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense. Uh, the Red Sox were 25th in ERA this year. And they had a bottom 2 bullpen. I was talking about last year, which happened to be the one year out of the last 87 that the Red Sox had the pitching.

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs. Yeah, and the Cardinals and Red Sox blew the Cubs away offensively last year. You can find a team to defend your position if you try hard enough. The point is, over time, great OBP gives you a great chance to score more runs, and scoring more runs is good. The Cubs need pitching to, but they can't go out and sign Clemens and Oswalt. And there's no guarantee that the Sox staff will be nearly as good next year. A small step back next season, and that team will suffer big time if that offense stays lackluster. The Cardinals and the Red Sox also had excellent pitching last year. The numbers this year also indicate that the game is moving away from the steroids induced offensive explosion of the late 90s. I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.