CubColtPacer

This is the absolute worse scenario. Move Soriano out of the 1 spot, where there is at least some evidence that he's better at and he's comfortable. The only reason you would think about doing that is to move him to a middle of the order slot where his home runs might do more damage. To move him to 2 though? That would basically be the worst of both worlds. He would be a part of the lineup that both doesn't fit his game and he doesn't feel comfortable with. It simply doesn't make sense.

Of course, that kind of proves to me that the lineup analyzer is not good. If you plug in the 8 exact same players and the OBP guy, I find that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. If the 8 other players are the exact same, why would putting your best player in the 6 spot result in over a run less per game than putting him in the 9 spot? There's absolutely no way that can be true. This exercise makes me trust the lineup analyzer a lot less if it makes bad decisions like this. the obp man gets way fewer plate appearances if you bat him ninth. since he's your only great hitter, that makes a big difference. Exactly, which is my big problem. The lineup analyzer says that the OBP man would be much better batting 9th than 6th. How does that happen? he won't be better, he'll just get to bat more since he's higher up in the lineup. this isn't difficult. He doesn't get to bat more if he's batting 9th rather than 6th. 6th should be better than 9th, but it's not according to the analyzer. That's why I'm complaining about it. 9th should be the absolute worst spot to bat him in that scenario where the other 8 players are the same, but the analyzer doesn't think that's the case. Read this sentence of mine again..I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying: The analyzer says that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. Now tell me how getting the OBP guy less plate appearances by being in the 9 spot scores a full run more per game than getting him more plate appearances.

And it's not like many of them have significant splits. Lee had a 1.015 OPS against left-handers last year. Ramirez had a 1.220. Theriot was at .797. DeRosa and Soriano typically are better against left-handers than right-handers, but they weren't last year. If they can find a platoon partner for Pie, there is absolutely no reason for them to struggle against left-handers. By all reason, they should hit left-handers the hardest.

Are you referencing Spring Training or during the season? I don't remember anybody complaining about the power during Spring Training, and then yes, most of the first half people were waiting for him to get the power stroke going. Your use of never is incorrect as his power returned in the second half of the year.

Who knows if Lou is still mad at Fox though. Fox got yanked out of the game immediately after one of his at-bats last August and never got another at-bat for the rest of the season. I'm not sure that he is going to get many chances with the team. Why, what happened to set Lou off? No one knows for sure, but the speculation was that Fox wasn't being as patient as Lou liked. Lou started him one day against the Giants. Fox saw a total of 5 pitches in 3 at-bats. After the end of the 3rd at-bat, Lou was visibly upset and pulled him from the game. The next day, it was reported he would be sent back to the minors, and he ended up not getting back in a game in the majors the rest of the year.

Who knows if Lou is still mad at Fox though. Fox got yanked out of the game immediately after one of his at-bats last August and never got another at-bat for the rest of the season. I'm not sure that he is going to get many chances with the team.

No real shockers there. Mateo and Samardzija have to go down to get their arm stretched out to be able to start. Fox has no spot on the team, and most of the other players were filler anyway who were there just to add innings anyway (with the possible exception of Campusano).

And what have those three done since the trade though? Pinto has been somewhat decent, the other two, not so much. Actually Pinto, the one that's done nothing. Mitre and Nolasco both have been alright when healthy. Both have already done at least as much as Pierre, when you combine them. Both have about 4 years under Marlins control to still do something. As far as future value, I'd take Donaldson over all 3 of them. At the same time, that trade I think perfectly symbolized Henry's biggest strength and some of his biggest flaws. He targets a scrappy player that is fast and has a good average. He recognizes which pitchers in his system are rated higher than they should be, but he fails to use that perceived value to get a good player. Most of Hendry's bad moves are not that staying pat would be a better option, but more that he probably should have been able to find a much better move for the value in his system. I do question the perceived value of players sometime, and Mizzou makes a good point up there. At the same time, it has been shown that Pierre has high value from several G.M.s (higher than he deserves, and his recent contract proves that) so if Hendry was able to trade for him the Florida G.M. must have put some pretty decent value on those pitchers. In this case, the pitchers perceived value was higher than their actual value, and they were used to trade for another guy whose perceived value was higher than his actual value.

You think? I figure Soto will produce more than Barrett/Kendall did last year. You gotta figure Pie/Fukudome will be more productive than Jones/Floyd were for us last year as well. This is definitely a better lineup than last year, IMO. In addition, you really would think at least 1, if not 2 or all 3 of Lee, Ramirez, Soriano will have better years than last year. last year at rf, we got a line of .298/.375/.419, which is about what we'd expect from fukudome, except a little higher SLG. last year at cf, we got a line of .254/.305/.404, and while i'd like to think felix pie could outproduce that, there's a very good chance he'll also match that or do worse. soto should put up better numbers offensively as the catcher this season, i'll grant you that. i don't expect lee or soriano to improve on last years numbers, i expect them to decline a little bit or stay the same. ramirez should improve, but he's also a big injury risk. so yeah, i don't think we've improved all that much on offense, and i'd expect us to be league average again. I'd expect us to be a little improved and a little above league average. Our two biggest spots for improvement are C and SS. C- .239/.304/.369. My expectation is that the catching tandem this year can do about 50 points better than that (Soto with a 750 catching 3/4 of the days, Blanco with a 650 catching 1/4) SS-.254/.309/.331. As bad as the position is for the Cubs, they likely will put up better combined numbers than that. Say a 30-40 point improvement over last year (which would put it right about what Theriot put up over a full season last year). There aren't really any positions you can see the numbers from last year and really say that it's going to go down. Of course, the biggest thing is going to be the play of Fukudome, Soto, and Pie. If 1 or 2 of them bust out (Fukudome with an 850+ OPS, Pie with a 750+, Soto with a 800+), or if Cedeno gets the job and he busts out (725+) there could be more improvement then that.

And you've made a lot of good points on this page. I like his ability to evaluate talent. There's a reason he was good at being a scouting director. Coveting Barrett and then flipping him right before he fell off a cliff is a good example. Ramirez and Lee have both developed further as Cubs. For the most part, he is just not going to trade away talent. All the minor leaguers that went to other organizations busted. Where Hendry is not good, however, is 1) staying away from his love of versatile, scrappy players and 2) understanding trade value and contracts. Minor leaguers who Hendry correctly realizes will bust likely still had higher trade value than Hendry traded them for. He just still doesn't quite understand how to work the system to his full advantage. I wouldn't call Burnitz a bust. He wasn't what the Cubs needed, sure. But he was a mediocre outfielder getting paid mediocre money. If the Cubs had made a major upgrade somewhere else, nobody would be worried about Burnitz. But they didn't, and so Burnitz gets unfairly labeled a bust. Agreed, and that references my comments above. Hendry's ability to find DeRosa was great, and shows his ability to find talent in unlikely places. His love of players like Theriot, and his love of DeRosa's versatility has led to the Roberts speculation rather than possible SS speculation, which becomes his mistake. The Hernandez thing is ridiculous and both fanbases are saying so. Several of the reports lately have said that the Cubs are only willing to take on Payton if the Orioles will take Marquis. I don't think there's much factual evidence of a mistake here. I don't necessarily agree with the EPatt decision, but sometimes you have to cut your losses. Should Harvey stay a hitter because practice makes perfect, and not switch to the mound? If they decide that his defense was bad enough that his only future was as a good hitting utility player and that no amount of practice would make it better, then they made the right decision. I haven't seen him enough nor am I skilled enough to make that determination. I can say that IMO he probably isn't going to get much better defensively than he is now. IMO if you haven't become at least competent at second after several years of playing there, another year or two of practice isn't going to really help matters. I just don't know if his level of defense is really bad enough to justify moving him off the position or not.

The Cubs saved 2 million dollars even after factoring in Burnitz's salary, and as mediocre as Burnitz was the Cubs still upgraded quite a bit in RF from what Sammy was like that year. Burnitz was 27 points better in OBP, 59 points better in SLG, and played better defense. That ended up being a good deal for the Cubs. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. The Cubs devalued Sosa to nothing more than a couple of minor league throw ins while picking up most of his salary to play for someone else. It didn't have to become public knowledge that Sosa decided to leave a few innings early. Teams would have been much more interested in Sosa if the bad rep wasn't following him around at the end of that year. I disagree that the reputation had much to do with it at all. It's as Bruce said with the Marquis situation. People in other organizations don't really care. If they feel a player who is talented can help the club, they'll make the trade He moves to a new club, and it's forgotten within 2 weeks. Unless there's something major that happens, there's very little that you can do to devalue a player in the media. Besides, the Sosa situation had died down nationally by the time he was traded. The camera incident was found out on the 7th of October. He wasn't traded until February 2nd. The negative media attention made no impact on what other teams would offer IMO. It may have made a difference on if Hendry was desperate to move him, but he waited long enough to see all the offers, and then he took the best offer. If clubs really thought that Sosa had something left in the tank, they wouldn't have passed him up just because of 1 incident that kept the nations attention for a week and then they moved on. History has proven that the best offer was better than keeping him.

The Cubs saved 2 million dollars even after factoring in Burnitz's salary, and as mediocre as Burnitz was the Cubs still upgraded quite a bit in RF from what Sammy was like that year. Burnitz was 27 points better in OBP, 59 points better in SLG, and played better defense. That ended up being a good deal for the Cubs.

Outside of Juan Pierre, I can't think of one trade that Hendry has made in which he got ripped off. And looking back out at it, it wasn't really a ripped off. And before people say what about Dontrelle Willis, I say Matt Clement was better with the Cubs then Willis was with the Marlins. So that wasn't really a ripped off. So, I don't get what Hendry gets a knocked for being ripped off in trades, when in reality, Hendry has made more good trades (even if they don't turned out as well as expected, ie Nomar) then bad trades. Now FA, that's a different story. Maddux for Izturis, although that was more of a case of wasted trade value then getting ripped off (since Maddux wasn't going to help the Cubs anyway before going into free agency). Trachsel for Moore, Cherry, and Renshaw. My guess is this trade simply won't matter in 3 years. I would agree with you though that if you lined up the 10 best players the Cubs have traded for and the 10 best players the Cubs have traded away during the Hendry era (as their careers have gone since the trade) the Cubs have come out way ahead, even when you get beyond Lee and Ramirez.

How long ago was this conversation? Lou's been in Arizona the whole last 3 weeks, and Jim probably has been as well. Before that, I don't know of any reason they would have had to go down to Florida together after the winter meetings, and that was 3 full months ago. Edit: saw your reply.

I honestly don't understand how somebody like Trent Green gets a 3 year, 9 million dollar deal. He's going to be 38, and all the teams should have refused to sign him for his own personal safety with the head injuries, let alone the ability to play football at a high level.

Cedeno or Cintron would be the extra person inserted into the batting order to spell Aramis, but DeRosa would probably be the one playing 3rd on those days.

Of course, that kind of proves to me that the lineup analyzer is not good. If you plug in the 8 exact same players and the OBP guy, I find that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. If the 8 other players are the exact same, why would putting your best player in the 6 spot result in over a run less per game than putting him in the 9 spot? There's absolutely no way that can be true. This exercise makes me trust the lineup analyzer a lot less if it makes bad decisions like this. the obp man gets way fewer plate appearances if you bat him ninth. since he's your only great hitter, that makes a big difference. Exactly, which is my big problem. The lineup analyzer says that the OBP man would be much better batting 9th than 6th. How does that happen? Perhap b/c typically a team's best hitters are at the top of the order, so if 9th hitter gets on base, more likely to be driven in... but in the scenario we plugged in the other 8 hitters were the exact same.

Yea, that's a bunch of b.s. A handful of sporadic ABs punctuated by weeks of sitting on the bench between them. He got 177 AB's total. shttp://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?statsId=7704&year=2007 Those were split over mostly two windows. If you look at the game log, he got called up and started at least 10 of his first 12 games in April (4 or more AB), and only once in those first 12 games didn't play. With a .250 OBP he got benched, and returned to Iowa. He got recalled again in June, and started almost every one of his first 20 20 games, routinely getting 4 or 5 AB. (The record shows two games with 2 AB and two games with 3 AB.) 79 AB in 20 games, that's full time opportunity. After a while, having gone hitless in five of his last 8 games, and with a .275 OBP and a .227 average, he lost his full-time job. Some sporadic bench play, back to Iowa. When he got recalled in August, he was again given a shot as the regular starter but this time a much shorter window, 4 straight starts. AFter going hitless in two of the last three, Lou bagged the idea it was sporadic defensive replacement usage with only a couple of starts the rest of the way. Basically 10 start, 20 start, an 4 start windows in April, June, and August. Each in concentrated packages, and each following full-time work at Iowa. So it's not like his opportunities involved using him when he was cold off the bench, other than the few scattered AB's during the last 6 weeks. The June window was really the best opportunity. If he'd have done well in April, that would have been great. But by June, they'd abandoned the Soriano-in-center experiment, it was Pie's to take and hold. Are 10 and 20 start windows too short? To adequately judge a guy long-term, obviously not. But that's long enough where a guy who's hitting at Iowa could keep hitting and go from there. I understand that a 20-start window is short; pressured; and even the best of hitters go through 20-game periods where they struggle. I expect it will be longer this spring. But I don't know how many outfielders are allowed to go as the regular starter with OBP in the .275-range. I think Pie will make it a lot easier on everybody if he can keep his OBP on the right side of .300 early on. Then he won't need to worry about how quickly Lou will pull the plug. Check out Pedroia's first 20 games. It wasn't very pretty. Also, Pie was not a "supported" starter. I think he was pressing, trying to do more then he should have been when he played because he knew his leash was short. I hope Pie comes out on fire and wins over Lou. If Lou supported Pie like he does Theriot, I'd be happy. I disagree completely with that in the June stint. They came out and said publicly "Pie is the starter. Period." They then went and came very close to trading the other possible starter in CF to the Marlins, and trade rumors were swirling around Jones almost all of the time Pie was the starter. And Lou did the same thing to Theriot. Theriot came out and did well, and then struggled and was quickly replaced by Izturis. Then, when Izturis struggled, Theriot came in and did well again in July before collapsing at the end of the year. which for Pie, Pie struggled and Lou replaced him with Jones. Jones struggled, so Lou replaced him with Pie. Pie struggled again, so Lou replaced him with Jones. Jones then did much better the rest of the year, so Pie never really got another shot. If Jones had struggled again after the All-Star break, Pie probably would have gotten yet another chance. Lou had a quick hook on just about everybody last year. It wasn't the best situation for a prospect like Pie to be in, and I wish Lou would have given him a longer leash. It was pretty consistent for everyone though. Izturis, Theriot, Jones, Murton, Pie, Fontenot, Barrett, Bowen, and Miller all got benched/traded quickly when they went south. Pretty much the only exception was Theriot in September, and that was after he had two more periods of good play than Pie did in the majors last year.

Thursday against the Athletics. He started Saturday in the split squad game, and didn't play in either of Friday or Sunday's games.

Of course, that kind of proves to me that the lineup analyzer is not good. If you plug in the 8 exact same players and the OBP guy, I find that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. If the 8 other players are the exact same, why would putting your best player in the 6 spot result in over a run less per game than putting him in the 9 spot? There's absolutely no way that can be true. This exercise makes me trust the lineup analyzer a lot less if it makes bad decisions like this. the obp man gets way fewer plate appearances if you bat him ninth. since he's your only great hitter, that makes a big difference. Exactly, which is my big problem. The lineup analyzer says that the OBP man would be much better batting 9th than 6th. How does that happen?

You should shoot him an email truffle and see what he thinks about the computers getting it exactly right. He said exactly what he thought about it right in the article.

Of course, that kind of proves to me that the lineup analyzer is not good. If you plug in the 8 exact same players and the OBP guy, I find that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. If the 8 other players are the exact same, why would putting your best player in the 6 spot result in over a run less per game than putting him in the 9 spot? There's absolutely no way that can be true. This exercise makes me trust the lineup analyzer a lot less if it makes bad decisions like this.

The biggest base clogging situation IMO is when the fast player is at the plate, not when they are both on base. On average, fast players are typically ground ball hitters who beat out plays with their legs on a semi-regular basis. In the Cubs case, their leadoff hitter isn't that way, but that's very atypical. Having a slow runner on first base hurts the production of that fast runner. Their high propensity of ground balls creates more fielders choice situations that if nobody was on base the leadoff hitter would beat out. Now, does that mean you should ever root for a slow player to make an out before a fast player bats? Absolutely not. Getting on base is always, always preferable. Can you instead structure your lineup where slow hitters are not followed immediately by the fastest guys on the team? Sure, and that should be a minor consideration if it doesn't hurt your lineup in other ways. In the Cubs case, if Pie and Soto end up being very similar hitters, then I would hope they would switch those two players in the lineup. My guess is that Soto will end up being a better hitter than Pie, and in that case the extra plate appearances for Soto are a lot more important than the fact that him standing on first base is a possible detriment to Pie's production. If they did end up being similar hitters, maybe then you have 4 to 5 times a season where Pie gets on due to an infield single and Soto singles him around to 3rd rather than Soto singling and then Pie grounding into a fielders choice at second. It's not going to make more than a 5 to 10 run difference at the most either way, which is why they would have to be very similar before you would think about switching them.

No, it isn't. I don't think Lou ever said that it was. True, but the pitcher has to make outs somewhere. There are arguments about where that should be. I don't see how that's relevant, but Theriot does a very good job at being efficient at stealing bases. Of course, I was thinking about the people who Lou might put in the 9 spot in this section. If you were referring to Soriano in the 1 spot, then this quote is more relevant but I don't see how the next quote fits, so I'll assume you're talking about possible 9 spot hitters here. absolutely true An average American league team has attempted more stolen bases than an average National League team in 4 out of the last 5 years. The average National League team hit more home runs than the average American League team in 2007 after being close for several years. The perception is that American league ball is about waiting for home runs and not stealing bases, but that's not the reality. Sure there is. It's a very minor negative effect of speed. What made everybody furious at Dusty was that he neutralized a very minor negative effect by sacrificing a major component (BB's), which created a much, much worse negative effect. Clogging up the bases is real (in an ideal setting, every player would be fast enough to make sure that the next player wouldn't have to stop a base short of where they normally would). It's just not important whatsoever, and should be way, way down on the list of priorities to fix.

Congrats Penn State. You simply deserved it more today. There's really nothing else to say.