Sammy Sofa
-
Posts
98,036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
206
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Sammy Sofa
-
I was tossing it in there because of the earlier assertions that Swisher would fit perfectly or that Jackson would make it all better. Clearly the former (and it was only one person) was talking about the Cubs' offensive needs and nobody said the latter. You and David can go line judge each other or whatever. -
Yes, Soriano/DeJesus/Swisher would be the OF and would be quite questionable. Wasn't even arguing the last part, but thanks for being you. I'm not sure what you mean by that, I wasn't "arguing" any part with you. Because you were tossing it in there either like you thought you had to clarify that for everyone, or like you thought I was saying, "guys, it's cool; with David DeJesus' amazing defense the Cubs will be fine in the OF if he has Soriano and Swisher on either side of him." But let's move on to bigger and better things.
-
Yes, Soriano/DeJesus/Swisher would be the OF and would be quite questionable. Wasn't even arguing the last part, but thanks for being you.
-
Wouldn't DeJesus likely be manning CF if they signed someone like Swisher? Everyone seems to forget he exists.
-
Nice. Would have preferred if they had just signed him last year, but I'll take it.
-
Neither. But if I had to pick, Ellsbury. Bourn pretty easily for me. Only 10 months older, and far, far more consistent. Ellsbury has been < 2.5 WAR in 3 of the last 4 seasons and is coming off injury, Bourn hasn't been below 4 fWAR since 2008. Well, the inconsistency has been due to injuries as opposed to just being bad, which is why I think some of us would prefer Ellsbury. He recovered pretty nicely in 2011. With Bourn you're likely getting more consistency, but it seems like Ellsbury's ceiling is higher if he can stay healthy. He consistently isoed ~120 his entire career, except for 2011, when it was 230. Look at his career other than 2011 and he is a 3 fwar guy. Now certainly you can't ignore 2011, but it wasn't a "recovery" because he had never played anywhere near that level in his life. Basically I'm looking at him as a solid guy if healthy with the potentially for much bigger things. Am I expecting 8-9 WAR season out of the guy? Of course not; but the possibility of being a 5-6 WAR player if he can stay healthy is enough for me to want him, plus with how highly the FO still seems to look at him.
-
Neither. But if I had to pick, Ellsbury. Bourn pretty easily for me. Only 10 months older, and far, far more consistent. Ellsbury has been < 2.5 WAR in 3 of the last 4 seasons and is coming off injury, Bourn hasn't been below 4 fWAR since 2008. Well, the inconsistency has been due to injuries as opposed to just being bad, which is why I think some of us would prefer Ellsbury. He recovered pretty nicely in 2011. Sure, but injuries also beget injuries too. Plus, with them being in the same career stage, and the hypothetical being that you give either of them a long term deal, why wouldn't you want the consistency. I'm aiming for the stars, dammit. That 8 WAR season is just something I can't turn away from. Besides, wasn't his injury last year from running into someone else? Not saying it won't still effect him, but it's not like it was another in a string of chronic injuries based on mechanics or physical flaws or whatever.
-
Neither. But if I had to pick, Ellsbury. Bourn pretty easily for me. Only 10 months older, and far, far more consistent. Ellsbury has been < 2.5 WAR in 3 of the last 4 seasons and is coming off injury, Bourn hasn't been below 4 fWAR since 2008. Well, the inconsistency has been due to injuries as opposed to just being bad, which is why I think some of us would prefer Ellsbury. He recovered pretty nicely in 2011. With Bourn you're likely getting more consistency, but it seems like Ellsbury's ceiling is higher if he can stay healthy.
-
Well, I'd argue both of those are better instances of upgrading a player's defensive stats since they're actually good defensive players and better than Juan Pierre, but that's not based on anything besides Juan Pierre being Juan Pierre. I fully cop to this just being a perception on my part and not based on any kind of proof that one is better than the other. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that "BR too often inflates the defensive metrics of players who are good defensively and Fangraphs too often inflates the metrics of players who are usually not very good defensively." Or maybe it wouldn't be.
-
Definitely Ellsbury.
-
The fact that his fielding was rated so strongly by Fangraphs, yet couldn't throw a ball into the infield on less than 12 bounces, makes me further question how "valuable" a player really is by WAR when it's driven by baserunning and defense. Bourn is OK, but this team needs offense and DeJesus had a higher wOBA last year. That's why I tend to lean more towards BR. Didn't bWAR have Barney as one of the most valuable players in the game for like a long time last year? Maybe? Fangraphs still comes across as being way too generous way too often with their defensive metrics than BR.
-
The fact that his fielding was rated so strongly by Fangraphs, yet couldn't throw a ball into the infield on less than 12 bounces, makes me further question how "valuable" a player really is by WAR when it's driven by baserunning and defense. Bourn is OK, but this team needs offense and DeJesus had a higher wOBA last year. That's why I tend to lean more towards BR.
-
So then there's an upside if they miss out.
-
Yeah, but 2005 Juan Pierre wasn't that hot (unless you're thinking Fangraphs is uber alles over BR. I'm splitting the difference).
-
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6008/6007605393_cb36f06e3c_z.jpg
-
So he's saying the deal being mentioned has the Bulls giving up Taj, Mitotic and a first rounder for Gasol? Surely Garpax can't be so stupid. Not only that, but just saying Mirotic should be "untouchable" is [expletive] laughable.
-
Well, to be blunt, you probably have to more often than you'd like to when your team stinks.
-
Where's that crying Batman gif? Someone slap a Cubs' "C" on his mask and lets make that a thing.
-
Yes, his May stats are inflated by how he was still good at the beginning of the month and then fell off a cliff in the second half. Look, I think Rizzo is likely going to beat up on the .796 production out of 1B last year and you don't. It's really that simple.
-
The 2012 Offseason Thread
Sammy Sofa replied to ctcf's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Jesus [expletive] Christ, don't tell me these things. -
LaHair's May stats are inflated by the carryover of how hot he was in April; he fell off pretty dramatically the last couple of weeks or so to really drag his numbers down. Far more importantly and relevant to this debate, Rizzo's average stats have a good chance of improve due to his talent and that he's still a developing player. It's faulty to approach his 2012 numbers like they're necessarily indicative of the player he'll be. I don't think it's a stretch to think he could be a .850+ OPS player next year.
-
Right. Basically it's that, coupled with Rizzo being a much better ballplayer. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him have a breakout year. I don't think he's going to annhilate last year's 1B production, but I don't think it's a stretch at all to think it's likely he surpasses it. neely's projections seem to just be working off of the idea that Rizzo will simply put up numbers comparable to last season extrapolated to a full season, as if he's not going to develop and improve.
-
I'm not dismissing it. He basically has one month of amazing performance (about the first 6-7 weeks of the season of relatively consecutive quality performance); I think a full year of Rizzo at first will contribute to more Cubs wins (offensively and defensively) than the Frankenstein's monster they had out there last year.
-
But aren't the stats saying that while LaHair and Rizzo's stats can be, in total, seen as similar, Rizzo was the more valuable player? In that he actually contributed to more wins than LaHair with his offense and defense? I know that's overly simplistc, but everything (and I'm just using BR today) seems to be weighing productive value much more heavily in favor of Rizzo.
-
I honestly have no clue whether I "want" to hear that or not; I don't understand what you're saying.
