MPrior

Dude, the catcher bats 8th, dude. Everyone knows that. Just like small fast guys bat at the top of the order. In all seriousness, that pisses me off too. Also, Lee really should bat 3rd. Even before his 2005 season, he was still a better OBP guy than Aramis: OBP: Lee/Ramirez 2000: .368/.293 (only 254 ABs; not really meaningful) 2001: .346/.350 2002: .378/.279 2003: .379/.314 2004: .356/.373 And then, of course, came 2005: .418/.358 Plus, as has already been pointed out, Lee has more speed.

I guess I have two things to say: First, with regards to the production vs. value thing, it's worth pointing out that, 1.) As far as scoring runs goes, production matters, while value does not; and 2.) if we are to discuss value, we also must consider how much each player is costing the team. And Murton costs much, much less than Pierre, and especially Soriano, and has a pretty good shot at significantly outproducting both of them. My second thing is in response to this: Considering 3 & 4 is where teams put their most productive hitters, the leadoff spots pretty important. I don't think it's the leadoff spot that's overvalued. It's the leadoff hitter. Especially when people laud someone with the moniker "true leadoff hitter" as though that made them drastically more valuable; if I were given the opportunity to construct what I thought was the best possible lineup from all of the available players, it would not have a "true leadoff hitter" in it. I would pick the most productive player at each position, and construct a lineup with what I've got. The most distinguishing characteristic of a leadoff hitter is a lack of power; OBP and speed are important, but if I've got someone with OBP, speed, and significant power, he's gonna hit in the middle of my order, not at the top. Bobby Abreu is a good example. The one thing that Juan Pierre has that pigeonholes him as a leadoff hitter is the fact that he can't hit for power.

While I'm not sure I want to get into a discussion on this topic on a baseball message board, I would like to point out that, while the international opinion of the US was not great before the invasion, it was nowhere near as bad as it has been since. We are loathed across the globe moreso than at any time in recent memory, and I'm pretty sure that it has to do with starting a war(which costs thousands of lives, millions of dollars, and the good graces of the rest of the world) for, as far as I can tell, no good reason. Of course, I'm telling myself that I just shouldn't even post this, because I'm inviting a discussion that I want no part of - but I still can't resist. If anyone is burning to specifically discuss this with me, though, pm me, because I may not check this thread again.

Can I just say that this is awesome? When we can look at pictures and just imagine how awesome these players are, without actually having to endure watching them play? I love baseball.

My favorite part is this, where a professional journalist completely, obviously, and drastically misuses a word in his (presumably edited and revised) piece. Man, those psychic implications are HUGE.

Be thankful that you don't have rabbit ear antennae in Los Angeles, thereby ensuring that you will never get to watch a Cubs game at all, ever. I'm really bummed about it. It's my first season out here.

Seconded. Skeletor is AWESOME.

No that is not correct. I actually believe that is correct. This year, anyway, Blanco was set up to catch on Prior's starts. I don't know if they kept with it, but that was the plan, and I seem to remember that being more or less accurate (someone who actually knows where to find this out for sure, could you look this up?). Plus, Barrett's numbers are significantly skewed because of catching Maddux all season long. If we got rid of Barrett, do you realize how truly terrible this lineup would be? I really think that's a bad idea.

Both Murton and Walker were far more selective than Cedeno when choosing what pitches to swing at. Cedeno's take/swing ratio was 0.98, compared to 1.11 for Murton and 1.16 for Walker. Cedeno really wasn't any more effective with his swings, either. Walker made more contact than Cedeno -- Walker made contact in 89.8% of his swings compared to 88.4% for Ronny -- while Murton hit with far more power than either of them, though his contact ratio was lower. Patience-wise Ronny's numbers were far more like Neifi's than anyone else on the team, though Cedeno's were a tad better. I'm waiting to actually see if Dusty starts Nefi more often than Cedeno. Can you imagine Nefi in the 2 hole???? No, I really can't. It's just unfathomable. No major league manager would ever do that. Why not, he did it last year? Although you could say these are a different set of circumstances (with Ronny having some experience), there was at least one AAA manager who couldn't believe Cedeno wasn't in Chicago sooner than he was. And I dont' think he was the only one. I believe that was sarcasm. And secondly, I don't really like the idea of someone whose OBP is as AVG-inflated as Cedeno's batting second, at least not until he proves he can maintain that average. If Cedeno does well, he'll probably have a line of .280/.325/.420, or similar, whereas Walker is a safe bet to put up something like his career numbers of .290/.348/.441, which is better in all aspects. Which of those two lines would you rather have in the 2 spot? Obviously I like Cedeno. And I'd be more than willing to hand him the no. 2 hitter role once he proves that he can sustain that very high batting average at the ML level.

I don't see why credentials matter that much when you're just stating an opinion, especially if it's mostly for laughs. And, other than the Devil Rays comment, I think an awful lot of posters here (myself included) would agree with his assessment of our offseason regardless of his credentials.

I definitely would have done it before we traded for Pierre. And I guess I probably would still do it, but getting him playing time would be difficult, because Pierre's gonna play just about every day, Jones is pretty much guaranteed a starting role (argh), and I want Murton in the lineup as much as possible, unless we have a serious power bat to take his place, and while I like Michaels a lot, he doesn't qualify.

You have a lot of faith in Murton, do you? :wink:

Too soon. This makes me laugh.

An interesting followup would be to do the same thing with slugging, and cross-reference the lists.

I mean, I already liked the guy. A lot. But well said. I like him even more now.

I'm with ChiCubsFan. ABSOLUTELY NO WAY DO I DO THAT TRADE. Todd Walker is significantly better than Lugo, and fits very nicely in the second spot in the lineup. Secondly, Jerome Williams is probably our third best starting pitcher. How many teams would trade their #3 starter plus a very good offensive 2B, who cost around 3 Mill combined, for an average-to-slightly-above-average SS who is only guaranteed to be around for one year and probably cost more (I don't actually know what Lugo's contract is like)? Not many.

Under no circumstances should Baker EVER be allowed near this baseball team. If the Cubs win 119 games and sweep the Yankees in the World Series next year, that won't change the fact that he's a total incompetent. I especially get mad that he literally destroys careers. I hold him personally accountable - at least partially - for the downfall of LaTroy Hawkins, the non-career of Juan Cruz, the ineffectiveness of Mike Remlinger, the destruction of Chad Fox's elbow, injuries to Wood and Prior, and reduced effectiveness of Prior, Zambrano, Wuertz, and others. He may also be partially responsible for some poor play on the parts of a few positional prospects, and who knows what will happen to the careers of Wood, Prior, and Zambrano down the road? Not to mention his incompetency at filling out a lineup card and his preference for players like Neifi Perez and Jose Macias over promising young players. As has been said many times, if the Cubs win, it will be in spite of Baker, not because of him. As for Hendry, I don't feel quite as strongly, so if the Cubs do win a lot, then maybe he deserves some credit. But it would take a pretty spectacular season with all of Hendry's gambles working out right. Otherwise, he should go too.

Huh? I thought the Penguin lived still. Reports of his demise have been greatly excagerated. It's not as funny when it's not Mark Twain saying it.

Somehow I doubt that Raisin will be too upset about questioning the education to be had at USC.

I think that's exactly what it was. Barrett was saying that we all need to expect the worst - because it's not good to be saying to yourself throughout the first month or so of the season "We'll be alright when Wood gets back." You have to assume that the team you're playing with is the team you've got. And if Wood does come back, it's like adding a player.

Man. If we got two minor leaguers for him, I really can't imagine them being that good. Unless the other teams' interest really pushed up the price, I guess.

I have newfound respect for you. No, seriously. That was awesome.

i would agree that hitters most definitely get hot (see the ball extremely well) over short and long stretches. the playoffs are agreat example of the hottest team winning, not necessarily the best. the marlins, red sox, and white sox are great examples of very hot hitting (and pitching) teams winning it all. sometimes, it all comes together at once, and generally those teams are able to win the series. But those "hot streaks" likely fall within the range of their average performance. They don't all of a sudden become better hitters, per se. If you flip a coin a thousand times, the chances of hitting some long streaks of all heads or tails is pretty high. Someone observing 8 heads in a row might say the coin is fixed. But those streaks happen with regularity--even in a random string of events. So, "getting hot" (at least in basketball and probably in baseball) is within the range of a player's average expected performance over many trials. This really shows the critical role of luck in small samples--like the playoffs. The teams that have a hot streak could be experiencing momentum, or they could be experiencing random fluctuation in their favor (i.e., luck). hey, your using my material! i always use the coinflip example. i generally use it to demonstrate the detriment of micromanaging. let's say that baseball is 60% luck and 40% skill. luck generally evens itself out over 162 games, sometimes it takes longer, but generally, luck is even for everyone over a large enough sample size. this means that talent wins out and everyone will win the exact same amount of coin flips. this does NOT work out when your manager is inconsistent in the way that he approaches the game. if the manager calls heads 81 games, and tails in 81 games, the luck might not even out and he has the possibility of costing the team games even with luck being absolutely even. this is why bunting, hit and runs, and stolen bases, imo, are coin flips, they introduce even more chance into a game in which you want to keep chance at a minimum, especially if your team has a lot of talent. only lesser talented teams rely on luck to win. if you DON'T behave consistently across all situations, you can cost your team runs and games. the best thing that a manager can do is trust in the ability of his ball club to hit the ball and get on base. there will be times when your team gets unlucky and loses games, there will also be games in which your team gets lucky and wins. trust in the law of averages and allow your team's talent to shine through. While I think I get what you're saying, and I think I may even agree with you, your analogy is a little confusing, and I don't think it works particularly well. I could be wrong, but what I'm getting is that, metaphorically, the manager should be calling heads (or tails) 162 times, as opposed to calling heads and tails at different times, depending on the situation. Statistically, this shouldn't make any difference. If I call heads all the time, I have a 50% chance each time I call it that it will be right. But if I mix it up, and sometimes call heads, and sometimes call tails, I still have exactly a 50% chance each time that I'll be right. What I think you're saying is that the manager should not increase the effect that chance has on the game by minimizing the effect that his team's talent can have on the game. Say, by micromanaging your bullpen, taking a superior pitcher out of the game just so you can have a lefty face the upcoming lefty. If that's the case I agree with you. I'm only pointing all this out cause I'm trying to fully understand your point. So let me know if I'm off here.

Maybe, but I think the point is that there is no good evidence that any players generally perform any better or worse in "clutch" situations from year to year. I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but that is my understanding of the available data. In any science, the null (assumed) hypothesis is that there is no real effect in your study. You seek evidence that forces you to abandon the null hypothesis, and accept that something real is happening. A failure to disconfirm the null hypothesis does not mean that there is no effect: It simply means that your study found no evidence that such an effect exists. James' description of this as a "failed" study is not quite right. There is no basis to call the study "failed" in any way. The study may accurately show that no real effect exists. Or not. Such an outcome simply means that if there is an effect to be found, you'd better look somewhere else (e.g., at a different set of statistics). As Tim rightly points out, the onus is on the proponents of an effect to statistically demonstrate its existence. The suggestion that "it's real but can't be measured" is a cop-out to the extreme, and is as good as admitting it's not real. Try publishing that in a scientific journal! :shock: Oh I'm with you - and I'm pretty familiar with the null hypothesis - I even had a minor argument with someone on a related note about it. I think we were loosely discussing clubhouse chemistry.

Generally speaking, I'm with the "clutchiness-is-inconsistent-and-of-little-relative-significance-or-at-the-very-least-is-extremely-difficult-to-define-and-measure" camp, but the point Craig (I think) brought up - that is, that "clutch" hitting is more about being able to perform at normal levels under pressure, and that the true difference comes with players that can't perform at normal levels - is something that I had thought of that makes more sense to me. A good example of this (yes, I know we were mostly talking about hitting, but whatever) is LaTroy Hawkins. He's a great reliever, and if you look at his numbers, 2004 was a pretty good year for him too. He just could not save games to save (heh heh) his life. Particularly, if I remember correctly, 1-run saves were difficult for him - and not just because a 1-run save is harder. I seem to recall that he was quite effective when the team was up by 2 or 3 runs, but seemed incapable of pitching well with only a 1-run lead. By the way, all that stuff about LaTroy Hawkins is based on my personal recollections - and I'm the first to admit that my personal recollections are both limited and subject to fault. So - I could be wrong.