fromthestretch

Almost as good as the Ike Turner headline. Almost.

His ERA+ of 122 in 2002, 109 in 2004, and 120 in 2005 say that he's been well above average. get out of here with your fancy logic and numbers. You'd think I'd know better by now.

His ERA+ of 122 in 2002, 109 in 2004, and 120 in 2005 say that he's been well above average.

No one has LD% by split. And I have no idea why you'd want that anyway. To prove that once he starts to get hit, he gets lit up. I thought numbers told the whole story? That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like asking for a team's record when they score fewer runs than the other team. No it isn't. I was asked to show numerically why I thought he struggled when others hit him hard and that's simply what I'm asking for. Because if he's getting hit hard in the first place, he's obviously struggling to begin with. Therefore, it makes since that he would struggle afterward, as well. If a pitcher doesn't have his best stuff on a given day, it's prone to happen.

No one has LD% by split. And I have no idea why you'd want that anyway. To prove that once he starts to get hit, he gets lit up. I thought numbers told the whole story? Chances are, if he's given up four runs, he doesn't have his best stuff to begin with that day.

I see it as your eyes deceiving you. Opponents hit .228/.296/.396 with runners on and .229/.302/.382 with men in scoring position against Hill. Overall they hit .235/.305/.394 against him for the season. I'd say that pretty much shows the pressure doesn't get to him with runners on base. Curveball pitchers are going to give up the long ball occasionally. As long as he's not putting guys on ahead of those home runs, the damage will be limited.

that's just a ridiculous statement. Sorry we can't put a number on it so you could understand it. well, sure, when you just pull stuff out of your ass, it's hard to put a number on it. Wouldn't that be number 2? =D>

That's going to sit well with the mods.

Pure class. Billy D. Williams would be jealous. Let's see: *Hard collision with a sprinting Marcus Giles. *Fractured elbow from a screaming liner of the bat of Brad Hawpe. *Shoulder surgery. All of this before the age of 27. I think Prior's already had his fill of bad karma. Considering none of those things are really his fault, I'd say he owes the Cubs absolutely nothing. Yes, it would have been nice if he took a lesser deal to stay, but I can't blame him for leaving the organization that didn't exactly exercise caution with his arm, implied that he was soft, etc.

"Just think, that temp agency could have sent you anywhere." "I think about that all the time."

What a lot of people are arguing here is that he needs a chance to play regularly in order to get it all together and start showing that potential at the major league level. Seven starts spread out over the course of the first month of the season doesn't constitute a legitimate chance to show what you're capable of. I'm not really complaining that Lou played the hot hand when Theriot started hitting in mid-April. My concern was that he kept playing him when Theriot stopped hitting about the third week of May followed by an awful June. At some point, you have to give Cedeno a couple months to go out there nearly everyday and show what he is or is not capable of doing.

July was the outlier, not Sept. He was below a .700 OPS in every month but July.

I'm curious. Roughly how long have you been out of college? A little over a decade. There are pros and cons to college life and post-college life, and a lot of that can be impacted by the person's area of study. I can certainly see how some would love to get back to the routine (or lack thereof) they had in college. Sorry to derail the thread, folks. Lefty, feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss further. Sign Fukudome!

It is true that your college and post-college years are the best years of your life. Don't screw it up. But, as someone who is old enough to be your father, been there done that. I wouldn't want to do it again. There's plenty of good stuff later on, too. I wouldn't mind going through college again. Most of the women there are...well, college age. The wife would probably frown on that though. Would you want your wife going through college again? Thanks for crapping on my fantasy. :lol: Seriously though, while I'm certainly not complaining about my life post-college, I do miss college life sometimes. I enjoyed having a much more flexible schedule back then.

It is true that your college and post-college years are the best years of your life. Don't screw it up. But, as someone who is old enough to be your father, been there done that. I wouldn't want to do it again. There's plenty of good stuff later on, too. I wouldn't mind going through college again. Most of the women there are...well, college age. The wife would probably frown on that though.

literally hundreds. oh, wait, he had like a .230 slugging %? probably not very many then. my bad. 1) already been said....scroll up 2) he proably had nothing to do with the Cubs winning the division or going to the playoffs considering he was 3rd in runs on the team (80), was one of six Cubs players who had over 100 hits (143) 3) remember when Alfonso was a 40/40 guy and this year he had 19 SB's in 135 games when Theriot had 28 in 148.. oh we paid Soriano 10,000,000 in 2007 to be our "leadoff man", tell me that theriot isn't worth that cost 4) this guy shouldnt be given a chance because hes a utility player, yeah right thats what Ronny Cedeno and the guy we just traded away Omar Infante is 2. You're praising him for 80 runs scored? That's actually low considering how often he hit in the first and second spots in the order. Most players with a respectable OBP would have had a lot more with Lee and Ramirez hitting behind them. And just about any major league hitter will get 100 hits if given as many plate appearances as Theriot. Most would get there in a lot less plate appearances. 3. Stealing bases doesn't make you a good leadoff hitter. Soriano brings much more to the table than Theriot, including getting on base more often in 2007. 4. Let me see if I get this straight...the Cubs should give Theriot another shot despite a bad season at age 27, but Ronny Cedeno is a utility player based on a bad season at age 23 (which was his only legitimate shot at starting full-time)? I'm not saying Cedeno will blossom into an All-Star, but his ceiling is so much higher than Theriot's. Theriot is a utility player. He can fill in for a couple weeks without hurting the team when someone goes down with an injury. I don't think many people would have a problem with him being a bench player for the Cubs, but he shouldn't be starting everyday.

1. His minor league numbers don't exactly show promise for a ton of improvement. 2. His range at SS is limited. 3. His approach at the plate isn't all that great. 4. He just turned 28...not exactly young for a guy that just completed his first full season in the big leagues.

Unless we are moving one of Howry, Marmol or Wuertz, I dont understand why we would want Lahey. He'd be nothing more then a throw-in in a trade and that team would still have to keep him on the big league roster. They could have just picked him themselves if they wanted him that bad. Then asked the Cubs for some other prospect. I think I am going to stop trying to understand anything we do at this point. Relievers are the easiest type of player to stash on a big league roster. ETA: Shane Lindsay wasn't selected by anyone. Call me braindead, but what exactly is your definition of ETA? I've always associated ETA with Estimated Time of Arrival, but that doesn't make sense where you have it. You're braindead. But I have no idea what he means by ETA here. I believe ETA in this case means, "Edited to Add". He's just pointing out why he edited his post.

2007 Cubs: vs. RHP: .274/.335/.419 = .754 OPS vs. LHP: .263/.325/.431 = .756 OPS If they had problems with left-handers then you can just as easily say they had problems with right-handers, as well. Whaaaaat? I guess I never did see stats to back it up, but it seemed obvious that they struggled more against lefties. That's a little bit mind-blowing. I think it helps to look at how they ranked compared to the rest of the league. They were below average against LHP, and slightly above against RHP. Plus, the OBP difference is significant, on a team wide scale, more important than the SLG difference. Yes, the OBP against lefties is lower than you'd like to see. While they could certainly stand to improve against southpaws, my point is that they really just need to improve overall offensively.

2007 Cubs: vs. RHP: .274/.335/.419 = .754 OPS vs. LHP: .263/.325/.431 = .756 OPS If they had problems with left-handers then you can just as easily say they had problems with right-handers, as well.

The Cubs don't have what it takes to get an elite player, only a good player. And why not target a good player coming into his 27-year season? When did I say the Cubs shouldn't go after Crawford? I just said don't give up too much for him. If you're going to overpay, then overpay for elite talent. If you're going to get good (but not elite) talent, don't overpay. I agree but I'd also add elite talent that you can keep and not be a rent a year type player. Exactly.

The Cubs don't have what it takes to get an elite player, only a good player. And why not target a good player coming into his 27-year season? When did I say the Cubs shouldn't go after Crawford? I just said don't give up too much for him. If you're going to overpay, then overpay for elite talent. If you're going to get good (but not elite) talent, don't overpay.

Or perhaps, you attribute too much value to Crawford. But I guess it's easier to blame everyone else on the board. If the Cubs trade Hill, that opens a hole in the rotation. He's a durable starter who has had success at the major league level and still has a few more years before he'll be making big money. That's a valuable player to have. If you're going to include him in a deal for Crawford - trading him to a team that needs and wants inexpensive, effective, young pitching - then you shouldn't have to give up too much more. If you're going to give up a lot for one player, go all out and try to get Cabrera. Crawford is good, but he's not elite.

Wow! So now Carl Crawford is Juan Pierre? This is absurd. I'm honestly baffled at the response on this message board to the Cubs interest in Crawford. The kid is a stud in the making, is only 26, and under contract for several years at below market value. You're talking about a guy who, coming into his 27/28 prime years looks to put up an .850 OPS, 60+ xbh, and 50 SB. Your looking at acquiring a guy for what will likely be his 2 best seasons as a pro. Juan Pierre part II? Did you just forget your smiley or something? No one is comparing Pierre to Crawford. People just don't want the Cubs to trade away the farm to get him.

So that's what that smell is.