goonys evil twin

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have. Let me be a bit more clear on my angle, because I feel there is a stronger emphasis on OPS than OBP when correlating Runs scored. When you look at offensive numbers, there is nearly a direct correlation between OPS and Runs Scored. For example, all of the teams in the top 9 for runs scored in the NL are in the top 9 for OPS, and the order only shifts slightly, with teams within 2 in ranking across the board. As expected therefore, the teams with the lowest OPS are also worst in Runs Scored As we would expect, the reverse is true when evaluating the stats from the pitching perspective. The 5 teams in the NL with the lowest OPS against are also the 5 teams that have given up the fewest Runs Scored. There are no anamolies on offense. But there are two teams with anamolies on the pitching side - The Cubs and the Brewers. Each has given up more Runs Scored than the OPS against would suggest. Maybe I am just allowing my optomism for the future to shine through, but it really seems to me that more runs are scoring than the mean would suggest. It sounds like you are overcomplicating things to make the Cubs look better than they are. They give up the most walks, and almost the most HR. But they also strike out the most. That is why they appear to give up "too many" runs per hit. The hits they do give up are big hits, and the walks mean more of those HR are with runners on base.

running into outs early. brilliant.

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have.

Oof, didn't think about that yet. The O-line was very pedestrian last Sunday. Thats something we should look at in the coming weeks. In 2004, the O-line was awful. The Bears only made a play for a couple of aging players that offseason, and they responded with an above average season last year. I wasn't too thrilled that the Bears chose to stand pat there this offseason with the worry about deteriorating skills. I've been worried about the O line for a few years now. It's the most important part of any offense, even moreso for a team that plans on basing it's entire attack around the running game. Not to mention, the lack of skill threats means the line has to be all that much better to keep the offense moving. I don't see the O doing all that well in this game.

Luck might play some small part, but it's doubtful. The stats I referenced describe why the staff is so bad. It would be a mistake to think luck plays a major role. They give up far too many baserunners, and baserunners are the biggest part of runs scored. On top of that, they give up far too many HRs. The one thing the Cubs staff does well is strike people out, and that's probably the only reason why they are just 5th in runs allowed, with BB and HR allowed 1st and 4th, respectively. This isn't a snake-bitten thing. This isn't a luck thing. The Cubs are a bad pitching staff because they are really bad at the two things you can't afford to be bad at as a pitching staff, walks and HR. It's the same reason why the offense is so bad. It has nothing to do with the timing. It has to do with the frequency of BB and HR. The Cubs are really bad at drawings walks and hitting homeruns, and because of this, they are really bad at scoring runs.

That much is clear and nobody will dispute that. But if you continue to examine last night's game, Miller gave up one hit and 2 runs. It has to be a combination of excessive walks and lots of HR given-up. I know I have seen both Zambrano and Marhsall this year, and Wood for several years, leave the game having given up more runs than hits, sometimes with only 2 walks in 6 innings. It's probably just perception, but it sure seems like that one hit only ever comes after a walk, and not with the bases empty. The Cubs have given up: the most walks in baseball the 4th most HR in baseball (2nd most in NL) the 5th most runs in baseball (2nd most in NL) the 25th most hits in baseball. That's how you end up giving up more runs than hits in a game.

I said it before' date=' and I will say it again, ARam will be the 2007 starting third baseman for the Cubs. [/quote'] If Hendry has any sense at all, this will be true. I've felt all along that Ramirez just wants his 2 year deal to look more like a 4/5 year deal. Unless Hendry feels Ramirez is some sort of choker for not carrying the team in April/May, or Ramirez has become completely disgusted with this team, I feel he's going to stay. Jim usually finds a way to keep the guys he wants. He'll overpay if need be, but he gets that part done.

always capable of disappointment.

me too but not everyone here can say that: viewtopic.php?t=35361&start=45 Wait, because I, and some others, aren't that thrilled about handing the starting job to Theriot in 2007, we can't say we love him? I've been calling for Theriot to be the cheap utility man that could do everything Neifi did, but better, for quite a while now.

I don't think there is a rule of thumb. But Lynch got two, correct? Everything I heard was that Jim was head over heals for Dusty, and had been for quite some time. He absolutely counts. Jim was asst GM for a long time, supposedly doing much of the work.

For a team that gets on base so rarely, they probably have one of the highest instances of making outs on the basepaths. 3rd most caught stealing, 3rd most sac hits (I assume that's sac bunts plus "moving runners over"), 3rd most grounded into double plays. Not sure where they rank in lined/popped into double plays. Aggressiveness is a nice word, it just doesn't translate well to success in baseball.

Bad odds. Andy hasn't really fired many GM's. Lynch quit. Andy is completely in Jim's corner. In order to fire him, he'd have to admit a huge mistake that he made in April, when he extended Hendry months before it was necessary to even think about (it should have been done before last offseason to give the GM credibility, or well into this season, to see how his team looked). Basically, our only hope is that Andy moves on to a new job, and whoever the new boss is, cleans house.

8.5 is way too big a spread.

Bad teams lose to bad teams.

I forgot there was a game.

Kent I assume? I really have no interest. Nor do I have a lot of interets in the soon to be 35 year old Ray Durham. I'd prefer this team do what it can to get younger impact players. I could live with a stop gap here or there, but I wouldn't be targeting them right now.

More than it being garbage time, what matters most is the sample size, 2000 PA of minimal production in the minors and 90 PA of solid produciton in the majors. You just don't hand out starting jobs based on those numbers. What he should be is the $350,000 utility player, instead of signing a $2.5 million version.

.167 .216 .167 in Detroit, 4-9 with him getting an at bat.

On the Cubs.com site, it has JP current obp as .330 for the season. Ichiro's obp is .360. I'm not advocating JP over Ichiro, just pointing out that even tho Ichiro's obp is .30% points higher, that is not a significant difference. A .330 OBP and .360 OBP is significant. Is it? The difference is getting on base one more time every 33 tries. There are 7 teams getting a .330 or less out of leadoff in baseball. There are 6 getting .360 or more. If it wasn't significant, you'd basically be saying there's no significance of having a bottom fifth OBP or top fifth OBP.

I don't agree with that concept. Andy's regime has been in charge for well over half of those 20 years. Hendry has been a main cog for 10+ years. Stability is not the issue. This franchise has been one of the most stable in recent years, and it's achieved nothing. How many teams have had the same GM and manager combo the past 4 years? Everybody likes to talk about the number of managers, but that's really just because of all the interim guys they've had. The Cubs have basically had 3 managers over the past 12 years. That's not incredible turnover. The White Sox, Dodgers and Red Sox have seen similar, or more turnover. Heck, Boston's been one of the most dysfunctional franchises out there, and have had a great deal more success than the Cubs. Florida has had nothing but turnover and upheaval, from ownership all the way through the front office and the field. The Mets have lacked stability, but they've had some pretty solid success. Atlanta is everybody's model for stability, but they've won every year. It's easy to keep the same leaders when they do nothing but succeed. The Yankees have been stable, but they are all threatened with job loss without winning the world series. And STL has been pretty stable as well. But those are about the only franchises in baseball that have been more stable than the Cubs, since Andy took over. The late 80's and early 90's were pretty unstable times for the Cubs. But that has changed quite a bit. The team is pretty stable, and has been for quite a while. Aside from being in a position where they can recover from this failure if they make the right decisions. stability hasn't brought much in terms of results. The Cubs need a shakeup, whether that's the GM making massive changes, or ownership cleaning house from up top.

I think it's bit shortsighted to say Theriot has earned the 2B job next year. He's 2 years older than Ronny and has about the same OPS throughout his minor league career. I'm all for replacing Ronny with a better player, but Theriot has not earned the starting 2B job for next year.

Heck, he'll overpay even if it isn't necessary. But strangely, he didn't overpay for his #1 target last season, Furcal. I'm hoping Pierre asks for too much. Yeah but Hendry had Cedeno as a backup plan, and Hendry has shown he will tolerate all-glove no-hit players in the MIF. He will not tolerate 2 rookies in the OF next year, so Murton/Pie is not a likely plan A. Hendry also talks about leadoff like it's a position, so in his mind Pierre's departure would leave a big hole in the offense. Murton won't be a rookie anymore.

I'd bet Murton gets traded in a package for some veteran help before I'd bet that deal. Although his surge might inspire Hendry to keep him.

He won't be in Iowa, and I doubt the bench as well. You'd have to trade him, which I'd be all for, but I bet Hendry has no interest.

Heck, he'll overpay even if it isn't necessary.