fromthestretch

A .345 career OBP (.336 this season) does not make for a good leadoff hitter. i disagree 2006 plaoff team's regular season leadoff obp: cards .350 detroit .335 padres .360 mets .354 oakland .367 yankees .359 dodgers .369 Not sure how you can post that list and still disagree. All of those, except for Detroit, were well above what Figgins did this season. his career obp is .345 with a career high of .352 which is within close range of every one of those listed. So it's just assumed he'll get back to that level? I remember a few people assuming that Pierre's 2005 was a fluke and that he'd bounce back this year. I actually view Figgins as an improvement over Pierre, but not by much. If he can be acquired for a reliever, that's great. However, none of that makes him a good leadoff hitter.

A .345 career OBP (.336 this season) does not make for a good leadoff hitter. i disagree 2006 plaoff team's regular season leadoff obp: cards .350 detroit .335 padres .360 mets .354 oakland .367 yankees .359 dodgers .369 Not sure how you can post that list and still disagree. All of those, except for Detroit, were well above what Figgins did this season.

Zito is three years younger and has a career ERA nearly half a run lower than Garcia's. Garcia has a lower walk rate. That's about the only thing he's done better than Zito.

A .345 career OBP (.336 this season) does not make for a good leadoff hitter.

He has the arm for it, and probably wouldn't be much worse defensively than Sosa was his last 5-6 years with the Cubs.

Actually he's very talented, he just hasn't picthed well. I think there is a difference. how hasn't he pitched well? two straight 80+ inning seasons with whips of 1.14 and 1.16. bunch of k's too. i don't think he's a bad pitcher, i just don't want to give up a ton for him. i'd be all for getting him if he didn't cost too much. he could serve as a bullpen arm or a much, much better insurance starter than the cubs have had over the past few years. Let me clarify - he hasn't pitched to expectations. Wasn't he their No. 1 pick and a big time star at ND? Anecdotaly, I sat next to a guy on a plane once who told me that he was a college ballplayer who had faced Heilman at ND. He said he was the best pitcher he had ever seen and that he is sure to be a star in the Bigs. Just hasn't happened yet. If we can get him "on the cheap", I think its a no-brainer. This could be a Chris Carpenter type thing. I saw him pitch in college, and he had incredible movement on his fastball. IIRC, the Mets tinkered with his delivery, causing him to throw more over the top. In 2005, they scrapped that idea, and he's been much better since. He's also been better out of the bullpen than as a starter.

While Gonzalez is slightly younger than Alou, Finley and Bonds, I figured that the Giants would look for someone around 30 or under when they said they planned on getting younger this offseason. Go figure.

I doubt Detroit would accept that offer. They already have Carlos Guillen at ss, they already have Thames and Monroe for LF, and they have Ordonez for RF. I am sure any talks regarding both Bonderman and Granderson would have to include Zambrano. Guillen's days at SS are numbered. His knee will prevent him from playing there too much longer.

9 out of 10 people will tell you that BA is a very important stat. 9 out of 10 people will tell you wins are the best way to evaluate pitchers. 9 out of 10 people will probably tell you Derek Jeter is the key to the New York Yankees offense. Does that make them right? Four out of five dentists agree.

Let's not forget how that 03 Cubs team made the playoffs. PITCHING They were fourth in the NL in pitching and middle of the pack in offense. Their offense played more of a role than you'd like to give them credit for. Don't believe me? The Dodgers had a major league best 3.16 team ERA that season. The next closest was Seattle at 3.76...that's how much better LA's staff was than everyone else (for the record, the Cubs were at 3.83). And they didn't make the postseason, finishing 15.5 games out of first in their division. Want to know why? They had one of the worst offenses in baseball that year. I'm not arguing that you need offense more than pitching, although you seem to think I am. I'm arguing that you need both. I know you need hitting to win. Pitching, however, plays a bigger role in your chances of winning a world series. The Houston Astros were second in baseball in team era. Their offense was one of the worst that year. They made the world series because their pitching was so dominant. The Cubs improved from the fourth-best pitching staff in 2003 to the second-best pitching in the NL in 2004, and didn't make the playoffs. In a short-series, yes, dominant pitching is a nice thing to have. Pitching doesn't always get you to the playoffs.

Let's not forget how that 03 Cubs team made the playoffs. PITCHING The Dodgers had a team ERA of 3.16 that year and they missed the playoffs. Damn. Beat me to it.

Let's not forget how that 03 Cubs team made the playoffs. PITCHING They were fourth in the NL in pitching and middle of the pack in offense. Their offense played more of a role than you'd like to give them credit for. Don't believe me? The Dodgers had a major league best 3.16 team ERA that season. The next closest was Seattle at 3.76...that's how much better LA's staff was than everyone else (for the record, the Cubs were at 3.83). And they didn't make the postseason, finishing 15.5 games out of first in their division. Want to know why? They had one of the worst offenses in baseball that year. I'm not arguing that you need offense more than pitching, although you seem to think I am. I'm arguing that you need both.

I bet if we all think really hard and remember back to...oh, let's say 2003, we can think of a seven-game series where a team with three young dominant starters didn't win the series, where a few unpredictable things happened.

Thank you for the edit. I think it takes a hell of a lot of luck to win, because anything can happen. All you can do is try to build the best team possible to even get into the postseason. So you think it just takes luck? In the postseason, a lot of it is luck. I think the sentence I bolded above speaks for itself, but I'll try to clarify a little. I think if you spend all your money on pitching, there's a good chance you won't score enough runs to even get into the postseason in the first place. While I do agree with you that great pitching is a very valuable thing to have and can dominate in a short series, pitching itself isn't always enough to get you to the postseason. The Cardinals did NOT have better pitching than the Tigers. They got better performances out of mediocre pitching. You claim to play baseball, so I'm sure you know that anyone can have a hot streak or a slump at any time. That can also happen in the postseason. In my opinion, the Tigers were the better all-around team. The better team doesn't always win, especially in baseball in Oct. when it's about 35 degrees. Bad hops, clutch hitting, mental mistakes...these aren't always things you can accurately predict. So build a team around the things you can predict with a greater degree of accuracy. Someone's signature on this site says something about building a team with pitching AND offense. You need both.

Thank you for the edit. I think it takes a hell of a lot of luck to win, because anything can happen. All you can do is try to build the best team possible to even get into the postseason.

There's no point in trying to convince you how flawed your logic is if you don't even read the posts well enough to see who is arguing what points.

Based on your logic, the Angels, Astros, and Blue Jays should have all made the postseason since their pitching staffs gave up fewer runs this season than the Cardinals. If you go by team ERA, you can add the Marlins, Indians, Diamondbacks, Reds, and Pirates to that list. Also, based on your logic, San Diego should have beat St. Louis in the NLDS and then the Mets in the NLCS. Based on your logic, the Indians, Phillies, Whitesox, Red Sox, Atlanta, and Rangers should have all made the playoffs since their hitting was in the top 10 in all of baseball. Also, based on your logic, the Yankees should have beat the Tigers in the ALDS, and then the A's in the ALCS. How does my logic that "anything can happen in the postseason" lead to anything you just posted? I haven't argued that offense always beats pitching. Try actually reading the posts next time.

So pitching always beats hitting, except when errors, mental mistakes, and a lack of clutch hitting prevent it from doing so. In other words, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN THE POSTSEASON.

Based on your logic, the Angels, Astros, and Blue Jays should have all made the postseason since their pitching staffs gave up fewer runs this season than the Cardinals. If you go by team ERA, you can add the Marlins, Indians, Diamondbacks, Reds, and Pirates to that list. Also, based on your logic, San Diego should have beat St. Louis in the NLDS and then the Mets in the NLCS.

Weaver may have pitched better in the postseason, but not many people in this world would ever say that Weaver is a better pitcher than Verlander. Even bad pitchers have some good games. Shawn Estes is proof enough of that. The Tigers pitching staff as a whole is much better than the Cardinals pitching staff. Carpenter was clearly better this season than any Tigers' starter, but Jeff Suppan, the Cards second-best starter this season, would have ranked fifth in the Tigers' rotation in ERA had he put up those same numbers in Detroit. Therefore, the team with the best pitching didn't win. Great pitching did not beat great hitting in this series. A team with mediocre pitching happened to get hot at the same time that its opponent got cold. In fact, giving all the credit to the Cardinals' pitching staff isn't fair to the offense that managed to score some runs against a very tough Detroit pitching staff. Edited to correct a misspelling.

Isn't this 2006?

I thought he was signed through 2008 with club options through 2010. That doesn't put him near free agency for quite awhile.

I'll be crying if the Cubs are the ones that give him that much.

Keep this in mind - From Opening Day 2005 until the 2006 All-Star break (a span of over 1000 at-bats), Pierre's OBP was below .325. In 2002, playing in Colorado, his OBP was barely over .330. He's not worth the money.

Henderson stole three bases in three attempts in that series. The running game had nothing to do with the A's getting swept.