fromthestretch

This post on Baseball Musings gives some insight as to how serious of a crime it is. http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/008374.php

well, he won the MVP because of HR and RBI. i don't think he had the best season in the NL that year, but MVP voters love RBI. for instance, he was only 10th in the NL in OPS that year. Oh okay, so you are discrediting that year's MVP award. Between your argument, VORP, and the irrelevant notion that Wade Boggs had a better year, there is a dearth of logic on these boards. How is it irrelevant when it's in response to a previous post where someone claimed they would take Dawson's best year over Boggs' best year? No one used that statement as reason for Dawson not to be in the HoF. "Dearth of logic" indeed.

I'd take Boggs' 1987 season over Dawson's best year.

Everything I've read so far just indicates that they were tested for "performance enhancing drugs."

Interestingly enough, yup. Considering how large the outfield is there, it will probably always play as a hitter's park. Even if the ball isn't going out at a high rate, there's a ton of room for hits to drop in. I always wanted to see them bring in the fences, and raise them higher. Cut down on the singles and the gap shots, even though you might get a few more HR. If you allow the OFers to cover less ground, it might help a lot. Agreed. The way it's built now, it would still most likely be a hitter's park at sea level.

I would. Zito will play his home games at AT & T Park, Lilly at Wrigley. Zito will be in the NL West with its share of pitcher's parks, Lilly in the NL Central. Petco is the only true pitcher's park in that division. LA has been well below average, but that's a reflection of the crappy offensive teams they've assembled lately. Dodger Stadium was top 10 last year, and Juan Pierre aside, it should stay that way with the influx of good young offensive talent. AT&T is about average, but Coors and Chase are still 2 of the premier hitter's parks in the game. Is Coors still a premier hitter's park with the humidor (I haven't looked at the numbers)? Interestingly enough, yup. Considering how large the outfield is there, it will probably always play as a hitter's park. Even if the ball isn't going out at a high rate, there's a ton of room for hits to drop in.

Why is that? He'll be 22 this season, hardly an unprecedented age to start in the big leagues. He's stopped at every minor league level. And he's got 426 pro innings under his belt. That's almost as many as Rich Hill. I really don't know much about the guy, but on the surface, it doesn't seem that you need to be high to think he could be MLB ready this season. The one thing he has going for him is his age. He may have good stuff, but his numbers certainly don't stand out. He has a good strikeout rate, but tends to give up quite a few hits. The biggest problem I see is that he has some trouble keeping the ball in the park. A few more months at AAA couldn't hurt.

That's not exactly a fair comparison either. Athletes are much stronger now that in the 1960's. and yet Banks hit over 500 homeruns..... Proving once again that steroids don't necessarily equal home runs. If this list comes out, there's a good chance you'll see some names that won't surprise anyone. Let's face it, would anyone be shocked to see Clemens, Javy Lopez, Kevin Brown, or either of the Giles brothers on there? However, you're going to see a lot more names that many people would have never thought of. Guys like (and no, I'm not claiming these guys are juicers, just using them as examples) Reggie Sanders, Cristian Guzman, Jason Kendall, Josh Phelps and quite a few middle relievers. What's really going to hurt is if you see guys that had good/great careers and were never really suspected of doing anything wrong. For example, how do you think people would react if Edgar Martinez was on that list? Edited to correct a spelling mistake.

Rest assured that if the list becomes public, anyone with a Hall of Fame vote will use this when deciding who to vote into the HoF.

You'll probably see more pitchers than hitters on that list.

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series. I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them.

They might argue over which toolsy gold glover hits the best with RISP, but the end result is the same. They keep making the same mistakes. Yeah, mistakes like acquiring DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, and Howry. Mistakes like developing Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, and Prior. These guys are so incompetent. Why do they even have jobs? I could do better with my elementary knowledge of statistics! i know, the cubs have been totally awesome since hendry took over! 5 outs from the WS. Hendry hasn't done jack. FIRE HIM NOW! Oh, and viva la revolution! Hoorary for almost! Hooray for 4 years ago! More like 3, but who's counting? Oh and 2004 was pretty darn good too. 2 bad years. It's the guillotine for Hendry. Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death! Scouts are an affront to liberty. Equality now! I'm not sure how finishing third in your division (16 games out of first) is "pretty darn good."

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about. and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless. And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot. That's just it. It's not certain that Guzman and Marshall will get their shot. The Cubs aren't going to want to toss Marquis aside when he's making $7 mil per season. Look how long they kept throwing Rusch out there, and he was doing a lot worse than I expect Marquis to do. It's one thing if he's blocking the younger pitchers while actually pitching well. It's another if he's blocking these guys while giving up 5.5 runs per game. At least Guzman and Marshall have options left, and both could probably benefit from some time at AAA. But if you're going to sign someone to fill a spot in the rotation until one of them is ready, you sign someone to a Wade Miller-type contract, not a three-year expensive deal. There are two things we can hope for at this point: 1. Marquis pitches around league average, so his contract won't be too difficult to trade if/when one of the youngsters is ready to take a spot in the rotation. 2. Marquis instantly becomes Cy Young calibur as soon as he puts on a Cubs uniform. Obviously, #1 is a lot more realistic, but still isn't a guarantee. If Marquis' ERA hovers around 6.00 again this year, he's going to hurt this team on the field, and he'll be very difficult to trade with his contract.

They might argue over which toolsy gold glover hits the best with RISP, but the end result is the same. They keep making the same mistakes. Yeah, mistakes like acquiring DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, and Howry. Mistakes like developing Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, and Prior. These guys are so incompetent. Why do they even have jobs? I could do better with my elementary knowledge of statistics! Obviously, those 11 guys aren't enough, since they led the Cubs to a whopping 66 wins in 2006...down from an already crappy 79 wins from the year before.

yeah apparently "all-star caliber" means hitting .340 for the first two months of the year, thereby getting lots of votes since you've got the best batting average in the league, and then completely falling apart after that. In June of that year he had a .270 OPS (yes, OPS) but by then it was too late and everyone had voted for him. Also, it didn't hurt that shortstops in the NL were a joke. I am on record on this board of saying that Izturis' June of that year was the worst month a professional baseball player has ever had. I really have never seen anything like that from a player that go 90+ ABs in that month span. Didn't Tony Clark have a stretch where he went like 7-for-100 when he was with the Tigers? I don't think it all happened in one month, but I remember he had a very lengthy slump similar to that.

Actually, the theory is lineup protection, when the facts have indicated that it really makes no difference. Where are these facts? I'm sure the links to the studies have been posted numerous times. You could probably find the articles using google. Whatever. You think batting Izturis behind DLee won't affect Lee's numbers? Of course lineup protection matters. It doesn't take a statistical study to figure out something that obvious. So the stats are lying? In your words..."whatever." There certainly are ways to lineup your batting order to maximize chances to score. However, the nine guys that are in your lineup are much more important than the order in which they bat. In response to your ridiculous example, Lee would probably walk more if Izturis hit behind him. However, when you walk, you aren't making outs. And Lee is a good enough hitter to not go fishing for pitches out of the zone when pitchers are pitching around him constantly. This is irrelevent though. If you truly do believe in the theory of lineup protection, it's pointless to post an example of trying to protect your best hitter. Lineup protection goes by the theory that pitchers won't be inclined to pitch around a hitter if they fear the hitter behind him more. If Lee is the most feared hitter in the lineup, who could possibly protect him? A better example would be to ask whether having Lee hit behind Izturis would help Izturis. Any improvement in Izturis' numbers with Lee behind him would most likely be minimal. In Izturis, you have an impatient hitter that puts the bat on the ball and doesn't tend to hit it with much authority. The damage he would do if you pitch to him would be minimal. Having Lee behind him isn't going to force pitchers to give him anything better to hit.

Actually, the theory is lineup protection, when the facts have indicated that it really makes no difference. Where are these facts? I'm sure the links to the studies have been posted numerous times. You could probably find the articles using google.

You can only DH for a pitcher.

Having Murton hit behind them doesn't ensure that at all. If a pitcher knows he can get Jones to chase bad pitches, he's going to continue to throw him bad pitches in most situations. Having Murton hitting behind him doesn't magically make Jones a more selective hitter. Nope, it means Jones gets more fastballs, which he can hit. You don't pitch Jones outside the zone (with offspeed stuff) when you have a guy behind him that can hurt you. Murton has pop and XBH potential. In most situations, a pitcher with any confidence in his stuff isn't going to care whether it's Murton or Barrett or Izturis hitting behind Jones. He's going to have a plan of attack and stick to it. If he knows he can get Jones to chase a certain offspeed pitch, having Murton hitting behind him instead of Jones isn't going to make the pitcher too scared to throw that pitch. That's the difference between theory and practice. Watch decent hitters without lineup protection behind them. You take your chances with the basehit over the walk, throwing more fastballs (obviously not exclusively). Sounds stupid, but it's done all the time. If you have a pitcher who has better control of a different pitch, then you throw that, but most ML pitcher command the fastball best. While most pitchers probably do have better command of their fastball than any other pitch, most hitters can hit a fastball better than any other pitch. Pitchers know this. They know Jacque has some trouble with certain pitches. I'll admit that there are certain situations where they probably will go after Jones in the strikezone rather than get him to chase a pitch. However, in most of his at-bats, pitchers will stick to their original plan of attack. The number of fastballs Jones would see will not dramatically increase just because Murton is behind him.

Having Murton hit behind them doesn't ensure that at all. If a pitcher knows he can get Jones to chase bad pitches, he's going to continue to throw him bad pitches in most situations. Having Murton hitting behind him doesn't magically make Jones a more selective hitter. Nope, it means Jones gets more fastballs, which he can hit. You don't pitch Jones outside the zone (with offspeed stuff) when you have a guy behind him that can hurt you. Murton has pop and XBH potential. In most situations, a pitcher with any confidence in his stuff isn't going to care whether it's Murton or Barrett or Izturis hitting behind Jones. He's going to have a plan of attack and stick to it. If he knows he can get Jones to chase a certain offspeed pitch, having Murton hitting behind him instead of Jones isn't going to make the pitcher too scared to throw that pitch.

Having Murton hit behind them doesn't ensure that at all. If a pitcher knows he can get Jones to chase bad pitches, he's going to continue to throw him bad pitches in most situations. Having Murton hitting behind him doesn't magically make Jones a more selective hitter.

ok, now post his numbers for 03, 04, and 05. interestingly enough, steroid testing began in 2006. Didn't it begin in '05?

Even if he reverts back to his three-year average, he's still going to be far from the bottom when it comes to centerfielders. If you stick him in CF and he proves he can handle it adequately, it might even increase his trade value.

Dave van Dyck is speculating it's done. And all the talk of Pie (by writers, Lou and others) makes me think they really want Felix to win the CF spot this year. I don't see them signing Floyd and keeping Jones, so, it's probably one or the other. What if they just keep everything intact from here. That would make LF a platoon of Murton and Jones, which would be really productive. And CF would be a mix of Pie, Jones, Pagan and maybe Theriot, which could end up anywhere from terrible to fantastic. And if Soriano needs a day off here and there, Jones plays there. I just don't like the idea of Jones still being on the team next year. He isn't likely to repeat his numbers, so I'd prefer to deal him now. I also don't like the idea of a platoon w/ Murton since there are more RHP in the world than LHP. Murton has enough experience that we should run him out there every day. If he struggles mightily for 3 months, maybe he's not meant to be an every day player. But if he rarely faces RHP, we're not going to know that. The days of Jones, Pie, Izturis, Blanco, P in the 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 spots are going to be really tough. Especially b/c that lineup also features DeRosa in the 2-hole most likely. Yikes. Jones put up an .833 OPS in 2006. If he put up those numbers as a CF, he would have ranked 8th in the majors among regular centerfielders, behind Mike Cameron and ahead of Torii Hunter. His three year avg. OPS is .777, which would have ranked him 11th in the majors among centerfielders in 2006, behind Eric Byrnes and ahead of Curtis Granderson. His contract isn't that bad considering the market. If the Cubs can get good talent in return for him, they should make a deal. But having Jones in CF in 2007 doesn't necessarily handicap this team offensively.

.276 .366 .526 .247 .306 .394 I wouldn't hire you to be a GM. I wouldn't want to be a GM :D Watch how fast everyone sours on Church if he is traded for. Doesn't it sound odd that a team that needs good OF'ers is looking to deal Church, even before the acquired Snell...... My point about Jones is that for every plus, Church makes some bonehead moves in the outfield and on the bases.... Well, after watching Alou and Jones make bonehead moves on defense and on the bases, we should be used to that as Cubs fans. However, Church provides more upside on offense than Jones and at a much lower price.