badnews

I do. Marmol didn't get enough of a shot as a starter last year, he deserves at least as much of a chance as Marshall has gotten. People say "You don't mess around with effective relief pitching" but teams do it all the time, with great success, like Johan Santana and Kelvim Escobar. I think the Cubs could use another high octane righty in the rotation in 2008. Relief pitching is, in my view, overrated. It's easy enough to find quality relief pitching at a bargain price; the same cannot be said about starting pitching. Look at some of the most effective middle men in baseball this year: Hideki Okajima Kevin Cameron Brian Wolfe Ryan Franklin Scott Dohmann Lee Gardner Scott Downs Heath Bell Chris Schroder David Riske Ron Mahay Doug Slaten Jesus Colome Russ Springer Randy Messenger Matt Herges Matt Guerrier Look at that list. It's a collection of washed up has-beens, never-was stiffs, an under-the-radar signing from Japan, a guy dug up out of the Alaskan leagues, and so forth. If Ryan Franklin can give you a 1.86 ERA out of the bullpen, *anyone* can. Some of the closers include Takashi Saito Todd Jones David Weathers Kevin Gregg Al Reyes Alan Embree Joakim Soria Jones was a cast-off from Philly a few years back, Reyes, Weathers, Gregg, and Embree were cast-offs this year, Soria, like Kevin Cameron, was a Rule 5 pick, Saito was another under-the-radar Japanese signing. It seems easy enough to get quality relief pitching. - Look for the next Saito/Okajima overseas. There was no bidding war to sign either of those guys. - Snap up promising guys from teams with roster issues, like what happened with Jenks, Gregg, Turnbow, etc. I thought the Cubs should've gone after Fernando Cabrera recently, he's got ridiculous stuff. But I guess the roster was too full of fringe veteran types instead to make room for a young, devastating power arm. Baltimore picked him up for free. - Utilize your Rule 5 pick intelligently. - Look around the other leagues, like the Braves did with Moylan and the Yanks did with Ramirez. - Sign some guys you think can bounce back. There's your bullpen. Marmol was groomed to be a starter and he should get a real chance. I think the Cubs really need that power righty in the rotation along with Zambrano, and no one can convince me that a) relief pitching isn't replaceable and b) It isn't worth a big time Santana/Escobar like return to try it. People might say "No. Marmol is fine in the bullpen." So was Johan Santana. Santana had worse control as a reliever than as a starter, in fact. I'd rather have 200 innings of Marmol than just 65. I think Marmol can be a very good starter, and I'd hate for the Cubs to miss out just because they lacked the fortitude to give it a real try.

It seems to take precious little time for other teams' draft picks to jump ahead of the Cubs often. Like Jabba the Chamberlain. I saw Vitters was mentioned on Baseball America's Not So Hot Sheet.

Doug Davis finally has a higher FIP than Rich Hill, it only took a 2 inning, 6 run fiasco where he raised his WHIP to a mind-boggling 1.60 to do it.

First off, Baseball America's Prospect Hot Sheet kind of crapped on Tony Thomas. "Yeah he hits well, but what an awful defender." What's the phrase for that? A left-handed compliment or something? I can't remember. Anyway we'll have to wait on Thomas until he hits the higher levels, the last "All numbers, bad scouting" guy I remember being talked up was Jim Negrych and he has really junked out. As for Colvin, to the guy above me, I don't know, we must be seeing and reading different things. I always read him projected as a major league left fielder, really, I saw the "tweener" label attached to him frequently, and now you're saying "stellar center field defense" and "a cannon for an arm" and all of a sudden it sounds like we're talking about Drew Stubbs in the field. I'm not going to argue about it beyond this post but this board isn't exactly objective.

Clevenger was lifted for Mark Reed as a pinch-runner in the 9th of a close game, so that may tell us he's a bad runner with little speed if Reed, who runs well for a catcher, but still, is pinch-running. Usually they don't pinch run just for the heck of it.

A stathead, we need a stathead over here! Doug Davis's FIP is 4.67, which suggests that he's worse than his ERA suggests. However, Rich Hill's FIP is 4.68, which suggests he's even more worse than his ERA suggests. But this is what bothers me - Rich Hill has a 1.19 WHIP, and stands 79.1% of baserunners. Doug Davis has a staggering 1.57 WHIP, and strands 76.6% of baserunners. FIP is supposed to tell you who is pitching better than their numbers and who is pitching worse. It doesn't seem like Hill is improbably stranding so many more than Davis to make up for the enormous difference in the number of baserunners Davis has allowed. To sum it up, this is what I don't understand - a 3.73 ERA and a 1.19 WHIP, that sounds like a reasonable correlation to me. A 3.92 ERA and a 1.57 WHIP, that sounds like ridiculous luck. How many pitchers have thrown over 180 innings with an ERA below 4 and a WHIP over 1.50? So who can explain the reasoning here?

That sounds like a contradiction to me. Like saying "I absolutely never eat meat, except beef, chicken, turkey, pork, and fish." Who puts that much stock in Iowa stats this year? Even Buck Coats looks good. Buck Coats is not good. Ronny Cedeno looked like A-Rod. I'm really dubious of Soto because he's striking out in over 24% of his ABs. That's poison. We've seen this time and time again, a guy comes up to AAA and hits like a madman but strikes out too much and flops in the big leagues. And then people wonder where guys like Dallas McPherson went wrong. I just don't buy the PCL "Hey, look at me, my BABIP is like .430, that's totally going to hold up in the major leagues." This was the same thing as so many guys, look at Dubois. It's not like Soto is 3 years younger than Dubois was either. And he's repeated AAA, and was never a great hitter before AAA, just like Cedeno. Not to mention all of the trade publications I've seen tab him as a backup, even more recently. As for the first reply to my post, before Pie's prospect status expired, our two best position player prospects were outfielders (Pie and Colvin, I hope nobody actually believes in E-Pat). Soriano will be here forever. So if Vitters moves to the outfield, it's not as big of a help as it could be. The Brewers drafted LaPorta because he was the best/most ready bat at that point, but that's the kind of move I hate, drafting a 1b/DH(LF if he's lucky) type of guy when you get those guys rather easily from other teams who have blocked prospects or grab a Cust type. On Baseball America's draft prospect tracker, they had Wieters ranked above Vitters, so I think you can say the Cubs did not take the best talent on the board. Furthermore, there's nobody who would say Porcello was not a better talent than Vitters. Somebody tries to argue that, it's simply not going to work. So they didn't.

Before Pie's prospect status expired, the team's two best position players were in the outfield, the other being Colvin (unless there are actually Eric Patterson believers on here... not me). Add into that Soriano is going to be there for a long time, if Vitters goes to the outfield, it's not the best fit. Like the Brewers and Matt LaPorta. He was probably the best/quickest to move bat available at that spot. But come on. Who needs to draft for a 1b/DH/(LF at best) type that high? That's where this idea of not drafting for need irks me. That kind of talent you can usually find when somebody else has a prospect blocked or with a Jack Cust guy floating around.

Where can you find minor league defensive statistics like that? I've looked in vain.

I disagree about not drafting for need. If the best player in the draft was another toolsy high school outfielder, yeah, the Devil Rays could be faulted for going there. Anyway, I think Wieters was universally rated better than Vitters anyway. The Cubs, not being good at developing major league talent, should've taken the guy closer to getting to the majors instead of the raw high schooler they have far less of a chance of developing. You can argue if you like, but the argument about not developing an impact position player for more than a decade still stands for me. Plus everyone says Vitters is heading to the outfield, that means between Soriano, Pie, Colvin, and anybody else who happens to come around there's going to be a crunch. As for Soto, nobody projects him as a starter.

Legitimate defensive catcher? With the bat, a 21 year old in Advanced A striking out two times in 103 ABs is sick. Even if you jump on the first pitch every time, that's really tough to do. So what's up with Clevenger? Next Polanco, or next Aaron Miles?

What happened to Ryan Acosta? Baseball America's Draft Database shows him as not signing? If he did sign, shouldn't he be with the Rookie team by now?

It's my opinion on here people are giving baseball science a little too much credit, and baseball science cites luck heavily. There has been some work in trying to flesh out "clutchness." There are some rudimentary clutch stats, though they have problems. One of the big pushes for luck is in BABIP. Some people have said it's all luck. In that case, Miguel Cabrera: 2004 - .341 2005 - .363 2006 - .382 2007 - .388 Every year, well above the standardized BABIP. So by one line of thought involving Cabrera, he's not as good as he is lucky. Does anyone really believe that? If the Cubs acquired Cabrera for a song, would people say "Oh, he's not good, he's more lucky than anything!" Manny has been the high BABIP master for years. I think he's more than lucky. And there's everyone's favorite projection system, PECOTA. For years PECOTA dumped on Carlos Guillen, but he's done well. Every baseball scientist has said Javier Vazquez is simply the victim of bad luck. His left on base percentage some years is quite low. Now why isn't more likely than Vazquez gets the jitters in tough situations, rather than, poor Javier Vazquez, if it weren't for his bad luck, he'd lead the league in ERA every year. I think the problem is treating this like an exact science, treating players like machines, when they aren't. I don't agree with the reasonable doubt explanation. I think it's extremely difficult to ignore Blake's numbers. I don't think the evidence I've seen that nobody is any more clutch than anyone else is particularly compelling either. A lot of the studies have been setting out to prove the wrong thing - that players people think are clutch aren't, like "Mark Lemke once got a clutch hit, so people think he's clutch, but the numbers say he isn't." I'd like to see them try and prove that no one is more clutch than anyone else, because I don't think it can be done. I'm also skeptical that it can be proven that wide gulfs in the numbers are more luck instead of personal player mentality. I think it's odd players can have varying numbers and we still rely on statistical success and scientific measurement, yet when players have varying "clutch" numbers, it means there's no such thing. Some players like certain parks, play well against certain teams (even when the roster has largely turned over), etc., why can't some players perform better in certain situations than others?

You are playing nice, but I don't think I am categorically wrong. Why can't it just be two baseball fans with differing opinions? Why does it have to be winning or trying to beat up someone else's opinions? In any event, this is getting quite involved so I'm not sure I'm going to have the time to devote to it. Anyone want to grab my POV and play Devil's Advocate?

But we don't know every player's splits, so we can't say that. It's much more likely psychological factors are involved than every year he's been playing he's had such incredibly drastic splits. Baseball isn't as arbitrary as a coin toss.

I don't agree with that. Let me put it this way - how can you tell when it's dark? The absence of light. Casey Blake is the "absence of clutchness." I think once you admit there are players that aren't clutch, you've opened the floodgates and it's difficult to say "Yeah, some players aren't clutch, but nobody is clutch." What I'm saying is, with my light/dark comparison, is that clutch can be relative. If you're more likely to hit your standard OPS in those situations than Casey Blake you're *more* clutch than he is. Take this proposal: 1. Some guys are more clutch than others. Is this true? I would say so. It's difficult to say every hitter is equally as bad in situational hitting as Blake, because looking at the numbers, it hasn't been true. Therefore #1 is true. 2. If some guys are more clutch than others, it stands to reason some guys must be in the upper 10% of these "clutch" indicators. That doesn't mean they do it all the time. It means they do it many years, and it means their drop-off is less than other guys. That's what people are missing. For example, if Ordonez (these numbers are made up) has, one year, an .830 OPS with the bases empty and an .805 OPS with RISP, people would say "Look at that! He's worse with RISP! Not clutch!" But that's not much of a drop-off. That's less of a drop-off than many guys, and considering most years he's better, even in his "not good" year, that's a pretty mild drop-off, as opposed to Blake who sports .400-.500 OPS point drop-offs some years in some categories. On another note, people have said "Clutch doesn't exist." Clutch is partly defined by what is not clutch, as many definitions are at least partially relative. If we can determine Blake is not clutch, that means clutchness exists, because it is a relative term. Success is a relative term. Freddy Garcia once won an ERA title with a bad ERA, but he was "good" that year. Relative definitions, fluxuating standards.

No, even with improve bolded, it's clear some players are more likely to improve upon the standard than Blake, who can't do anything. Iron clad guarantee? No. More likely? Definitely. Again, with the coin thing, that's luck. Luck is not the reason Casey Blake is awful in these situations. Every single year he's been in the bigs with enough ABs, it's been the same story. His career OPS Bases Empty vs. RISP is 300 points lower. 300 points. I don't think people can fully grasp what a change that is. Imagine Miguel Cabrera hitting like Adam Everett for a season. That's 300 OPS points. Nothing can be done to influence a fair coin toss one way or another. The same cannot be said for hitting a baseball in certain situations. Maybe Blake absolutely can't stand the pressure, or some other psychological reason, but he's been doing it too long and there's too huge of a gap to call it luck in his case. In baseball a player has more control over his success than a coin flipping contest. Sabermetricians have been saying Javier Vazquez is one of the best pitchers in baseball for years now, that he's simply unlucky. They don't accept that perhaps psychologically he chokes more than other pitchers with men on base. But the result is the same - disappointment.

I conceded that you likely have more time/energy/willpower to win a contest of insults, but as for the baseball-related post you were making incendiary comments about, I don't think you're right and I'll leave it at that. I could find more examples, I just don't have all that time. Most of the evidence against clutch hitting is anecdotal as well. What numbers are consistent? What numbers can you predict? Hey, I predicted Vernon Wells and Carlos Delgado would do well this year, pffft, wrong. I predicted Casey Blake would struggle as usual situationally, hey, I'm right. I never said it affected a lot of players. I said I don't think it doesn't exist. Even when players aren't always clutch every year (and many guys don't put up the same overall numbers every year anyway) some of them don't drop off as much as others. A lot of these arguments say that there is *nothing* useful to be said about clutch numbers, I don't agree with that, as I've stated above. So I'm not making any claims as to how widespread this is. I am saying, it does exist. I don't see a compelling reason to mess with what works. For whatever reason, Soriano over his career has been better with the bases empty, and in his years with New York and Washington when he was leading off he was better, in Texas as a middle of the order guy he was worse. If the Cubs were a less, ahem, "snakebit" organization I'd be more apt to experiment. But I don't think it's a good idea to play mad scientist and experiment with the lineup any more than it's already been done. We know Soriano is comfortable and can produce in the leadoff spot. We don't know about the middle of the order, but the evidence isn't encouraging. I don't want to leave Soriano struggle in the #4 or #5 spot for two months while we accumulate more data on the subject. Soriano's probably less likely to steal down in the order with this team, and it's not like there's a Ryan Freel standout leadoff candidate, I've seen enough of no power, 1-4 with a single Theriot.

It seems to me you're picking a fight where there wasn't one. I mean, calling yourself a sleeping giant? And that kind of tough guy message board talk? That's pretty corny. Making threats like that out of nowhere is just odd and in my experience online the posters who do so are not worth talking a whole lot with. You may know what you're talking about, but you didn't in the first post you made to me that I read of yours. Saying someone is completely wrong without reading their post makes no sense. I think you disliked the way I phrased it and overreacted. When I said what I stated was a fact, I meant it. It was a fact. It wasn't "I'm bragging that my opinion was a fact" I was really stating a fact. "Chance" seems clearly to be a cop out. It doesn't explain why every single year Casey Blake is so much better with the bases empty than with runners on and/or scoring position, or why other players can much more consistently keep it on an even keel and not tank in those situations. Anyway, I'll congratulate you. You're going to win this argument. Because I'm getting a feeling you're one of those types who always has to have the last word and does a lot of mudslinging so I think I'll be bowing out early because I don't have the patience or desire for flame wars. I hope I'm wrong.

Let's forget about Soriano for a moment. Some of the statements in this topic that there is no such thing as clutch bother me. I'll have to re-post ten minutes worth of stuff because of the board logged me off, but what the heck. If clutch doesn't exist, than it doesn't exist in any degree, and nobody would be more likely to produce at least their Bases Empty OPS with Runners On and RISP then. But that is not the case. OPS with Bases Empty - OPS with Runners On - OPS with RISP Casey Blake 2007: .941 - .763 - .576 2006: .942 - .708 - .811 2005: .886 - 558 - .491 2004: .908 - .769 - .723 2003: .743 - .695 - .718 It's clear. Every single year of his career his OPS with the bases empty has been better than his OPS with runners on or with RISP, often *hundreds* of points better/worse. There is no equivocating. Casey Blake is a poor hitter with men on base vs. with the bases empty, this is almost legendary. Ignoring it because "clutch doesn't exist" would be foolish. It seems patently clear - put this guy somewhere in the lineup where few men are on base. Batting him right in the meat of the order would be foolish. So, if clutch doesn't exist, then nobody can be more likely to reproduce their Bases Empty OPS with Runners On or RISP? Wrong. Ibanez 2007 - .642 - .895 - .920 2006- .825 - .921 - 1.050 2005- .767 - .822 - .858 2004- .837 - .811 - .736 2003- .818- .780 - .858 2002- .807 - .975 - .981 Ibanez - better with Runners On and/or RISP than Bases Empty most of the time, even when he wasn't, it stayed close, there was no huge drop-off like Blake. Maggs 2007- 1.118 - 1.079 - 1.055 2006- .825 - .829 - .833 2005- .673- .931 - .982 2004- .672- .1.021 - 1.068 2003- .935 - .915 - .923 2002- .975 - .981 - 1.008 Remarkable. He's either better with Runners On or RISP or he's really close to his Bases Empty OPS. There is virtually no drop-off whatsoever. So, to even things out for players of differing ability, we talk about their ability to reproduce their bases empty OPS, or, let's say, within 10% of it, in Runners On or RISP situations. Who is more likely to do so? Ordonez or Blake? If there is no "clutch" there should be no difference. There is. There's a huge difference. Magglio Ordonez can stay consistent in situational hitting, Casey Blake folds faster than Superman on laundry day.

The "other factors" have never been reasonably substantiated to my satisfaction. The answer may sometimes be no, it doesn't predict the future, but there are players that it more often does, like Casey Blake. To a lesser degree this applies to Soriano. Soriano has been playing too long to reasonably expect this to change. I don't know many hitters who fit this situation, but when there's many years of this kind of situational hitting happening, I think it doesn't make sense to ignore it.

Well, congratulations. You just proved post count has no bearing on intelligent, rational discussion. It's foolish to say someone is "completely wrong" without reading their post. It's foolish to say "you have no argument" without reading the post. And sorry, but chance doesn't account for the wide variations or surprisingly consistent performance in these situations. Some players do better than others, that much is clear. And even if it "chance," what I stated is still a fact, so you're wrong.

Well, with a refutation like that, how can I argue? If you want to judge post counts instead of each post on its own merits, you can do so. But what I stated is a fact. How is not? To argue against that would be to say that every player in baseball history has the same differentiation between their overall OPS, their bases empty OPS, and their runners on OPS. Which is clearly not the case. I'm just curious, did you actually read my post, or did you just decide you didn't like the way I phrased it and decided to pick an argument? Because what I said was a fact is a fact, not an opinion - I'm not completely wrong about it, and there are examples to prove I'm not. All I have to prove is that not every player improves as much in a situation, say, runners on, to prove that I'm right, whereas you would have to improve in the situational stats that every player has the exact same variations, which you can't prove, because they don't.

I've read some of those studies, and none of them ever address some simple facts, like some players, over their career, do better with the bases empty than with RISP, and some do worse. I think the studies I've seen have explored different facets of "clutch." But it's a fact. Some players improve more from their "standard" line with RISP, and some do worse. That is a fact; it is not debatable. There are different facets. For example, you can be productive in Close and Late situations but still hit worse with RISP than with the bases empty. So far this year, it works out much like the career stats say it should. Soriano is a .323 hitter with a .927 OPS leading off an inning, with none on and none out, he's a .333 hitter, .949 OPS hitter, none on, 1/2 out, .312 BA, .956 OPS hitter. With runners on base, he's a .250 hitter with a .707 OPS this year. Forget about trying to make him something he's not already. Look at Casey Blake's situational stats year by year. Look at his 2005, and marvel at possibly the worst clutch hitting year by any player, ever. Then tell me it's a myth.

Oh my heart bleeds for poor Bud Selig. He knew what was going on. Did he ever call for change, and put the union on the spot for defending steroids? No he didn't. Automatic failure. He kept his yap shut about it and reveled in the attention and money it drew. The bottom line is, he said nothing about it. He has a public soapbox, and he didn't use it. People say steroids were banned in 1991, but I can only find reference to a memo from Fay Vincent, not any actual rule being passed, not to mention all the stuff like andro which wasn't banned until far later. There is a lot of confusion on the issue. In this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AheHTF7GVpkgGXcBjNkdtAQRvLYF?slug=ap-giambi-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns it says steroids weren't banned until Sept 2002. But is that the date for testing? Where is the actual rule in the rule book that the memo was about in 1991, and when was that rule enacted? What seems to be clear is that not all performance enhancing drugs were banned all at the same time, like andro, thus you can't retroactively punish people like this when there were no penalties at the time.