davearm

Runs scored/Game Cubs 4.60 NL Ave 4.64 average? yes sub-par? maybe pathetic? unjustifiable. Wrong. Keener's not referring to season totals. It's recently that matters, because that's when we stopped winning. In August the Cubs have scored 112 runs, that's 15th in the N.L. The offense is pathetic, period. Keener was griping about the offense "that our GM has assembled." Hendry assembled this offense in late July? More or less, the offense has been pathetic the whole season. When the offense was good in April, the bullpen was horrid. The offense has been about as pathetic as it can possibly be, ever since the All-Star Break. The statistics shown above disprove this conclusion: 4.60 RPG against an NL average of 4.64 is not pathetic, it's average.

Runs scored/Game Cubs 4.60 NL Ave 4.64 average? yes sub-par? maybe pathetic? unjustifiable. Wrong. Keener's not referring to season totals. It's recently that matters, because that's when we stopped winning. In August the Cubs have scored 112 runs, that's 15th in the N.L. The offense is pathetic, period. Keener was griping about the offense "that our GM has assembled." Hendry assembled this offense in late July?

Thanks for the correction CCP. My math was indeed off. And I'd agree that the method isn't perfect, but does provide an approximation.

people got it. you are incorrect. he certainly is. run through the numbers if you'd like. and let me provide this link viewtopic.php?t=43717 So your argument is that Zambrano's hitting makes up for the pitching deficit, huh? Well I took you up on your invitation to run through the numbers. Zambrano has produced 11 runs (8 runs + 5 RBI - 2 HR = 11 RP). Lilly has produced 9 runs (5 runs + 4 RBI - 0 HR = 9 RP). Hill has produced 5 runs (0 runs + 5 RBI - 0 HR = 5 RP). So let's just net those runs produced with the bat off of each guy's earned runs allowed on the mound and see what we get. Lopping off 11 earned runs drops Zambrano's ERA from 4.06 to 3.51. With 9 fewer ER, Lilly's ERA falls from 3.85 to 3.16. 5 fewer ER nudges Hill's ERA from 3.68 to 3.06.

Soriano was really bad before the injury. He was. I'm beginning to think he's going to be prone to long slumps forever because he doesn't seem like to care much for coaching. It's always Lou needing to tip-toe around Sori's wishes. I hate that, I don't care the kind of money you make. We're going to be tip-toeing around this guy for 7 more years. It's really starting to get under my skin. It's been under my skin. The guy is hobbled with a bad quad but he has good HR power, yet the manager is too afraid to take him out of the leadoff spot. Who is running the team, Lou or Soriano? I don't think it's Soriano that's demanding to hit leadoff and play LF. I think it's Lou and/or Hendry that's looking at his numbers in the past (and the few ABs he's had when playing CF or hitting elsewhere in the lineup this year) and concluding that he has to hit first and play LF. I don't remember seeing Soriano make any demands about it, so I don't blame him. I blame our manager/GM. Amen to that. This notion that Soriano is dictating his spot in the order is far more imagined than real. The reality is that Lou fills out his lineup card however he thinks gives the team the best chance to win.

you're going to judge him on one night? every pitcher has a bad night. does webb suck because the padres scored 5 off of him last night? he must not be the diamondback's best pitcher by your logic. Zambrano hasn't been the best pitcher on the Cubs this season. Hill and Lilly have been better. This isn't entirely true. Hill and Lilly have been more effective on the mound. I wouldn't say they've both have been better pitchers. So Zambrano has been less effective, yet better? I think we're going to need another longwinded rambling paragraph out of you to explain this one.

Gotta talk in a language they understand ;)

Waiting for what, exactly? You posted about how bright you are and how you saw things clearly from the beginning wrt Jason Kendall. Good for you. I didn't see a question in there.

Are you kidding? You post this and then tell us that the "saber crowd" is condescending and self-righteous? The second quote was a response to the original condescending and self-righteous comment about Kendall being washed up.

I really think you are way off here. I don't think even the biggest stats advocate would ever say that scouting is largely obsolete. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that. Ever. Correct. Moneyball was about how scouting can be overvalued. The example given was Billy Beane, the player. A physical specimen who was supposed to have five tools was outplayed by the less-attractive but better overall player, Lenny Dykstra. Moneyball painted old-school scouts, and traditional scouting methods, as the dinosaurs of baseball. I don't think I'm overstating things here with regard to how Moneyball has changed the way many folks view scouting.

Find me these people. PLEASE. Many folks that read Moneyball and have adopted Moneyball concepts hold some variation of the view that scouting is largely obsolete and unnecessary, and replaceable by rigorous statistical analysis. You'd have to be a fool to deny that this mindset exists. It'd be more accurate to say that scouting identifies talent/ability (those terms are synonymous), and sabermetrics measures past production. Both disciplines attempt to forecast future production using the information collected -- speed, strength, awareness, etc. in the former case, and BABIP, xFIP, BB:K etc. in the latter case.

I'm sorry, but going out and getting and expecting a baseball player to contribute for your team while he is not doing so for the other team based simply on seeing him 'in person, at a baseball game' is foolish, and even though it worked out this time it will fail miserably more times than not. There was reason to believe, even among 'sabers', that Kendall had a decent chance to improve, as he was already beginning to trend upwards during his last days in Oakland. But most of the season prior to the trade he looked lost. In this situation it payed off, to a certain extent, but I don't see how that entitles you to pointlessly gloat and make asinine statements about things which you clearly don't understand.Wait, a minute ago you said, "he looked washed up to everyone." What happened to that? You're singing a mighty different tune now. Wow. Your grasp of sabermetric analysis is laughable. Not trying to be a dick, but you're kind of making an ass of yourself with this statement. You don't know the first thing about my grasp of sabermetric analysis. And the only people making an ass of themselves here are the sabermetric drones making declarative statements about Kendall's ability based on zero firsthand observations of him actually playing the game while he was in Oakland, and zero credentials to properly evaluate a player even if they did have such firsthand experience. These same folks tend to believe that everything they ever need to know about every player in baseball resides right inside their laptop, and there's never a need to step out into the sunshine and actually watch players play. You're making a very convincing case that you're such a person. And you're compounding your error with your arrogant holier-than-thou, you- must-be-dumb-if-you-don't-agree-with-me-attitude. And you compound it yet again considering the fact that the evidence suggests you're dead wrong in this case, yet nevertheless you continue with your I'm-right-and-you're-wrong crusade. Hey don't get me wrong, I'm all for sabermetric analysis, and I grasp it just fine. We even agree that a blend of scouting and sabermetrics is appropriate. It's just that the condescending self-righteousness and implied infallibility that's all too common coming from the saber crowd makes my skin crawl. As much as many would protest, stats don't always tell the whole story -- as this present case illustrates perfectly.

Perhaps the biggest advantage to hiring a new GM from outside the organization would be that such a person could be expected to make decisions on guys like Wood and Prior without the burden of sentimentality and nostalgia clouding the process. Now I'm not saying these two should or shouldn't be retained. Just make the choice a fully forward-looking, objective one, and completely absent of memories of 2003 and whatever preconceived expectations were once held for these guys.

You can't possibly be serious. He wasn't hitting for contact or power and wasn't getting on base much. His approach at the plate at times bordered on masochistic. He looked washed up to everyone. Hendry took a flier on the guy hoping a change of scenery or for that matter was better than what he was putting up in Oakland. Hendry gambled right only after he gambled wrong. And by the way, it's not scouts vs. 'sabers'. The two are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. I guess I'm mixed up then. I thought Gary Hughes was a scout. I also thought that Hendry pursued this deal after Hughes recommended Kendall, after Hughes actually watched Kendall play, in person, on a baseball field, several times. So you tell me -- who was it that Kendall looked washed up to. Because it wasn't the scout that was sent to evaluate him. As best I can tell, that leaves the sabermetric guys that glean their knowledge predominantly from stats and websites, and form their judgements based on the numbers their computers spit out at them.

He didn't look washed up to the people that were actually watching him play baseball. He looked washed up to the folks that were just staring down a stat sheet. Scouts 1, Sabers 0.

I think it's pretty obvious that if Cuban got the team, Hendry would be gone. Cuban is a numbers guy, big time. Hendry is a scout who got promoted one too many times. I can't see Cuban looking favorably upon extending Hendry's tenure beyond whatever grace period he might need to assess the situation. Cuban is the best candidate for the job, but that doesn't matter to the MLB. They want what's best for the league, not what's best for the Chicago Cubs and ultimately, the Tribune. Fortunately what's best for the league also happens to be what is best for the Cubs -- for the Cubs to be contenders. Same holds for BOS and NYY -- the three teams with the largest national followings. MLB would be pleased as punch if all three of those teams were in the playoffs every season. Now ultimately MLB might reject a guy like Cuban for being too renegade or whatever, but make no mistake -- the league will want an owner with a strong commitment to building and sustaining a winner.

Why? Even if it works, I'm complaining. Yeah right. Yeah so, I'm the first to call out decisions that are bad even if they work We hadn't scored since what? The 3rd inning? Sorry, but that was not a bad decision, it was bad execution. Kendall couldn't execute the bunt, and then he couldn't execute with the runners moving. It's that simple. Why would you send the tying run with 0 outs in the 9th when he's already in scoring position. It makes no sense. so you don't need a hit to tie it up? But I hated the call. Valverde is a strikeout pitcher. Fontenot isn't fast. Too much risk. Sucks it didn't work out. I don't see how anyone can defend that call. 0 outs, runner already in scoring position, top of the order coming up. I was fine with bunting, but why take that big of a risk? It's very simple, and has already been explained. There's more than one risk at play here. Lou's thinking was that the risk of Kendall hitting a GB was larger than the risk of him striking out. Pretty basic stuff here. Not sure why there's such a struggle to grasp the logic.

Why? Even if it works, I'm complaining. Yeah right. Yeah so, I'm the first to call out decisions that are bad even if they work We hadn't scored since what? The 3rd inning? Sorry, but that was not a bad decision, it was bad execution. Kendall couldn't execute the bunt, and then he couldn't execute with the runners moving. It's that simple. Why would you send the tying run with 0 outs in the 9th when he's already in scoring position. It makes no sense. Because you're more worried about a ground ball DP if you don't send the runners than a strike-em-out/throw-em-out DP if you do send them.

Don't agree, not that I'm in love with Lou like some are. However, what a terrible decision Lou made the right decisions in that AB (first bunting, and then starting the runners with a full count). Blame Kendall's execution, but not Lou's managing.

Extremely well said.

How so? First and foremost, negligent usage by an inept manager that most likely led to some of his injuries. Secondly, the Cubs have more or less played along with the crowd who believes Prior is a wuss who isn't man enough to pitch through pain. They repeatedly said there's nothing wrong with him, when in fact, it turns out there was some serious problems. That's a highly disingenuous characterization of the situation. It was the doctors and the medical reports that were saying there's nothing wrong with Prior. And as I recall, that includes Prior's own doctor(s), whom he consulted with on his own. The Cubs were simply passing along those findings to the media when asked. The simple fact is that whatever serious problems existed (and when they existed) were a mystery to everyone until this spring -- Prior and his personal doctor(s) included. The surgery he had this season was for injuries that were built up over the past few years, certainly indicating that those previous reports were at least somewhat wrong. Well there seems to be much uncertainty as to whether the injuries that were discovered this spring were there in the past and just missed, or represent recently-sustained damage. Regardless, if the previous reports were wrong, then that's on the doctors (including Prior's own), not the Cubs. It's not as though Jim Hendry is standing in front of reporters discussing the findings of his own personal examination of Prior's arm. "The Cubs" are just the messenger here.

Right now we've got Jones playing against both LHP and RHP. Tell me, does adding Monroe into the mix to face the LHPs strengthen or weaken the OBP situation? Try and keep up man. Answer the question. Jones + Monroe > Jones. Yes or no. Nobody but you has said word one about next year. Although the same algebra would apply then, too.

Whoa doctor, Hendry and his love for the 30 year olds. Are we looking forward to a 2008 OF that features Monroe and his .258/.303/.448 97 OPS+ career line in a prominent position? I really hope we only see this guy on the roster for the next 10 weeks. More needless piling on and assuming all sorts of facts not in evidence. The evidence suggests Hendry and co. see Monroe as the RH equivalent of Randall Simon or Daryle Ward -- a useful reserve/spot starter with a specialized skillset (in this case hitting LHP) and some defensive flexibility. There's absolutely nothing here to suggest that Hendry's got bigger plans than that for the guy, either now or in the future. And so what if the guy's 30? That's not even close to old for a typical ballplayer. Hendry's right to expect he's still got a lot left in the tank. You're really reaching to find fault with Hendry for making this deal. You are really clueless. I've said multiple times I don't have a problem with the deal. I'm merely raising an eyebrow to some comments by Hendry, comments that align themselves with his tendancy to provide unwarrented contract offers to undeserving players. The point about 30 is Hendry clearly doesn't understand the concept of players' prime years. Over and over it's been shown the prime of a career is 26-29, but Hendry repeatedly acts as though prime years are in the 30's. Once again, the evidence just doesn't support the rant. The Cubs' roster is right in the middle of MLB in terms of average age. The Cubs' oldest player is 35. Every team in baseball except Washington has at least one player older than that. 13 teams have 40 year olds. And oh by the way, the teams that have the oldest rosters also happen to be the best ones (NYY, NYM, BOS), while the teams that have the youngest rosters also happen to be the worst ones (TB, FLA, PGH). Yes, Hendry and his alleged fascination with 30 year old ballplayers is just killing the Cubs.

Right now we've got Jones playing against both LHP and RHP. Tell me, does adding Monroe into the mix to face the LHPs strengthen or weaken the OBP situation?

Whoa doctor, Hendry and his love for the 30 year olds. Are we looking forward to a 2008 OF that features Monroe and his .258/.303/.448 97 OPS+ career line in a prominent position? I really hope we only see this guy on the roster for the next 10 weeks. More needless piling on and assuming all sorts of facts not in evidence. The evidence suggests Hendry and co. see Monroe as the RH equivalent of Randall Simon or Daryle Ward -- a useful reserve/spot starter with a specialized skillset (in this case hitting LHP) and some defensive flexibility. There's absolutely nothing here to suggest that Hendry's got bigger plans than that for the guy, either now or in the future. And so what if the guy's 30? That's not even close to old for a typical ballplayer. Hendry's right to expect he's still got a lot left in the tank. You're really reaching to find fault with Hendry for making this deal.