CubColtPacer

I'm willing to give Soriano a little slack on that. This is only his second year of being an OF in his life. If he feels the little hop helps his routine, I'm not going to be upset about it. The hop probably is instinct anyway-trying to train it out of him at his age will just cause him to start thinking too much out there and not letting his natural abilities take over. If the hop starts to make him drop several balls, then you revisit it, but right now it hasn't done any harm.

Which would suggest one of Soto, Cedeno, or Murton right? Taking a quick look at the stats for Iowa, all the other top hitters are left-handers (except for Kinkade, who is a career minor leaguer that has reverse splits this year anyway, and Richie, who is still the backup catcher for Iowa). Al the other top hitters are left-handers-Coats, Hoffpauir, Patterson, Moore, and Kroeger. If the Cubs are going to look for a right-handed bat in their system, it seems like one of those 3 would have to be the guy.

Well, Torii career numbers aren't good, but he's been pretty good (by CF standards) several times and bad several times. He's been really good this year, so it's a great name to throw out there. He's got a .900 OPS! Well, like I said, he's very good his year. But those .309, .306, .312, etc OBP - those years were bad. Here's a good illustration of my point: '01 - .784 OPS (.306/.479). I don't care what position you play, a .306 OBP is bad. And even a .480 SLG doesn't make up for it's badness. It's better than say a .410 SLG, but it's still doesn't mean it was a good that season. There were 14 qualified CF's in 01. Here are several of them: Andruw Jones-.251/.312/.461 Kenny Lofton-.261/.322/.398 Darin Erstad-.258/.331/.360 Johnny Damon-.256/.324/.363 Doug Glanville-.262/.285/.375 Jerry Hairston Jr.-.233/.305/.344 Brady Anderson-.202/.311/.300 If Hunter was bad, then what were these guys, mostly horrible? That's half of the qualified league (and I took out one guy who had 18 points less of OPS overall but 31 points more of OBP). It seems like you are dismissing OPS as a flawed stat and putting in OBP instead. While OBP is the more important part of OPS (and should be adjusted accordingly, I've seen 1.8 as the multiplier on several different sources from Tango to Hardball times to Dan Agonistes) OPS is still the single best indicator of scoring runs (outside some of the complex formulas), and it's not even close. So yes, if I had two players who had similar OPS's, I'd much rather take the guy with the much higher OBP. If the OPS's are not similar (say within 20 points) I'm going to take the guy with the higher OPS. You can still score a lot of runs with a bad OBP (although it is difficult), a bad OPS makes that pretty impossible even with a good OBP. If you look at this graph as well, this source even says that SLG was a better indicator than OBP over a 5 year period. Of course OPS was much better than either of them: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/ Well, yes, those are some pretty bad stats. Are you really trying to argue that Brady Anderson's .311/.300 line is good? I don't understand the point. I'm not dismissing OPS. I'm a big proponent of it actually. I just think if you're trying to determine a player's value in the past or predicting his performance in the future, there are other things to consider as well. OBP is just one of those things. A .310 OBP is bad. And when you couple that with a .465 SLG, the resulting OPS is still bad. A .775 OPS isn't necessarily bad, but if includes a .310 OBP, it is. And I've seen you post the runs/OPS correlation study before. I'm not sure how much it proves. Maybe it will prove to be ground breaking and SLG will be the stat that everyone thinks is most important, but right now I don't think that's the case. All I'm saying is that "bad" is relative. When half the league at the position the player plays is below that number, that player did not have a "bad" season, it's an average season. If Jones put up a .310/.465 line in the second half, it would be an average second half for a center fielder, because around half the league is under that number.

Well, Torii career numbers aren't good, but he's been pretty good (by CF standards) several times and bad several times. He's been really good this year, so it's a great name to throw out there. He's got a .900 OPS! Well, like I said, he's very good his year. But those .309, .306, .312, etc OBP - those years were bad. Here's a good illustration of my point: '01 - .784 OPS (.306/.479). I don't care what position you play, a .306 OBP is bad. And even a .480 SLG doesn't make up for it's badness. It's better than say a .410 SLG, but it's still doesn't mean it was a good that season. There were 14 qualified CF's in 01. Here are several of them: Andruw Jones-.251/.312/.461 Kenny Lofton-.261/.322/.398 Darin Erstad-.258/.331/.360 Johnny Damon-.256/.324/.363 Doug Glanville-.262/.285/.375 Jerry Hairston Jr.-.233/.305/.344 Brady Anderson-.202/.311/.300 If Hunter was bad, then what were these guys, mostly horrible? That's half of the qualified league (and I took out one guy who had 18 points less of OPS overall but 31 points more of OBP). It seems like you are dismissing OPS as a flawed stat and putting in OBP instead. While OBP is the more important part of OPS (and should be adjusted accordingly, I've seen 1.8 as the multiplier on several different sources from Tango to Hardball times to Dan Agonistes) OPS is still the single best indicator of scoring runs (outside some of the complex formulas), and it's not even close. So yes, if I had two players who had similar OPS's, I'd much rather take the guy with the much higher OBP. If the OPS's are not similar (say within 20 points) I'm going to take the guy with the higher OPS. You can still score a lot of runs with a bad OBP (although it is difficult), a bad OPS makes that pretty impossible even with a good OBP. If you look at this graph as well, this source even says that SLG was a better indicator than OBP over a 5 year period. Of course OPS was much better than either of them: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

I love the logic. Jones is a CFer so he doesn't count. Fantastic. He's played 160+ gemes in CF and 800+ in RF/LF. Jones counts, he doesn't count for much unfortunately, but he counts. I'd get rid of Ward's fat ass in a NY minute if the Cubs could get an 800/900 OPS outfielder to play in RF every day. If they could find one, they might be able to play Pie in CF every day. In my breakdown of roster spots, the Cubs need 2 people who can play CF. That needs to be 2 of Jones/Pie/Pagan. The Cubs don't have enough room to keep all 3 of them when they go to 12 pitchers, and the team has to carry 2 of them. Therefore the fact Jones is on the roster would have absolutely nothing to do with Murton coming up because they would be playing different positions. Jones's purpose on the roster in that scenario would be as either a starting or backup centerfielder, and his ability to play in the corners would have no bearing on him being on the roster. Basically, the Cubs would have to drop 2 players in this scenario. 1 would be for the 12th pitcher, and 1 would be for Murton. 1 of these players is going to be 1 of Jones/Pie/Pagan. Who is going to be the other player? As for dropping Ward, I wouldn't do that for Murton. Ward has been a huge bat off of the bench for the Cubs.

If Murton were to be called up, he'd probably get about the same time as he did before. All of the left-handers, and a few of the right-handers for about 50% of the at-bats. It's going to take quite a bit for him to get noticed down there though-right now, he is just a slightly above average Iowa hitter in the hitters paradise that is the 2007 PCL. I certainly hope he can play well though, because the Cubs could really use his bat against left-handers. It might not be a matter of him being noticed as much as it may be Angel Pagan becoming Angel Pagan. I think most reasonable people knew he would come back to earth. Now that he is and probably will still come down some more will the Cubs come to their senses and bring up the BETTER hitter. The Cubs still need a CF to play against LH's though. Murton cannot, Pagan can. RF is less urgent with DeRosa heading out there. The Cubs need to find another option for a RH CF through a trade though because Pagan is not going to be that good either. Since Pagans biggest downfall is LHed pitching I dont think this makes a difference. He can also stay up. Might as well send Pie down since he isnt playing. Pagan is only up here in the first place to play against LH's. That's exactly why he was called up, and that's been the majority of his playing time in the majors. He may not be good against LH's, but he's a lot better than Pie or Jones in that area. Plus, Pie already will have to be sent down when the Cubs go to 12 pitchers. It's going to be really hard for Murton to get a spot on the roster the way it is currently. You start with 12 pitchers, so that leaves 13 position players. Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, DeRosa, Floyd, and Ward get 6 spots, so there's 7 left. You need 2 SS's, so Theriot and Izturis get spots. You need 2 CF's, so 2 of Jones/Pie/Pagan have to stay up. Add 2 catchers in, and there's only 1 spot left. That goes to 1 of 2 people: Fontenot, or Murton. Basically the only way Murton can get his way back onto the roster is if Fontenot starts slumping to the point that his bat is not useful anymore. It's not a good situation (because Murton could still help the team), but unless DeRosa starts getting a lot more time at SS I don't see how anybody else could possibly go to the minors (except of course for an upgrade at that position, like exchanging Soto for Hill). So basically the redundancy of Floyd, Ward and Jones is probably costing the Cubs from having a hitter capable of .800 ops, who would also help against LHers. Jones is 1 of the 2 CF's. He doesn't count. Floyd and Ward are somewhat redundant, you are correct, although Floyd wouldn't be needed only if Ward could play the OF consistently, and I don't think anybody wants to get rid of what Ward has given to this team so far.

If Murton were to be called up, he'd probably get about the same time as he did before. All of the left-handers, and a few of the right-handers for about 50% of the at-bats. It's going to take quite a bit for him to get noticed down there though-right now, he is just a slightly above average Iowa hitter in the hitters paradise that is the 2007 PCL. I certainly hope he can play well though, because the Cubs could really use his bat against left-handers. It might not be a matter of him being noticed as much as it may be Angel Pagan becoming Angel Pagan. I think most reasonable people knew he would come back to earth. Now that he is and probably will still come down some more will the Cubs come to their senses and bring up the BETTER hitter. The Cubs still need a CF to play against LH's though. Murton cannot, Pagan can. RF is less urgent with DeRosa heading out there. The Cubs need to find another option for a RH CF through a trade though because Pagan is not going to be that good either. Since Pagans biggest downfall is LHed pitching I dont think this makes a difference. He can also stay up. Might as well send Pie down since he isnt playing. Pagan is only up here in the first place to play against LH's. That's exactly why he was called up, and that's been the majority of his playing time in the majors. He may not be good against LH's, but he's a lot better than Pie or Jones in that area. Plus, Pie already will have to be sent down when the Cubs go to 12 pitchers. It's going to be really hard for Murton to get a spot on the roster the way it is currently. You start with 12 pitchers, so that leaves 13 position players. Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, DeRosa, Floyd, and Ward get 6 spots, so there's 7 left. You need 2 SS's, so Theriot and Izturis get spots. You need 2 CF's, so 2 of Jones/Pie/Pagan have to stay up. Add 2 catchers in, and there's only 1 spot left. That goes to 1 of 2 people: Fontenot, or Murton. Basically the only way Murton can get his way back onto the roster is if Fontenot starts slumping to the point that his bat is not useful anymore. It's not a good situation (because Murton could still help the team), but unless DeRosa starts getting a lot more time at SS I don't see how anybody else could possibly go to the minors (except of course for an upgrade at that position, like exchanging Soto for Hill).

If Murton were to be called up, he'd probably get about the same time as he did before. All of the left-handers, and a few of the right-handers for about 50% of the at-bats. It's going to take quite a bit for him to get noticed down there though-right now, he is just a slightly above average Iowa hitter in the hitters paradise that is the 2007 PCL. I certainly hope he can play well though, because the Cubs could really use his bat against left-handers. It might not be a matter of him being noticed as much as it may be Angel Pagan becoming Angel Pagan. I think most reasonable people knew he would come back to earth. Now that he is and probably will still come down some more will the Cubs come to their senses and bring up the BETTER hitter. The Cubs still need a CF to play against LH's though. Murton cannot, Pagan can. RF is less urgent with DeRosa heading out there. The Cubs need to find another option for a RH CF through a trade though because Pagan is not going to be that good either.

If Murton were to be called up, he'd probably get about the same time as he did before. All of the left-handers, and a few of the right-handers for about 50% of the at-bats. It's going to take quite a bit for him to get noticed down there though-right now, he is just a slightly above average Iowa hitter in the hitters paradise that is the 2007 PCL. I certainly hope he can play well though, because the Cubs could really use his bat against left-handers.

You're certainly asking the right questions. Homeruns (except for the inside-the-park variety) are not balls in play, so homeruns don't count against defensive efficiency. Hits do count against the defense. Why? Because the evidence shows that pitchers have very little (if any) influence on whether a ball in play becomes a hit or not. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/another-look-at-dips1/ 4 of the Cubs starting pitchers are in the top 40 in BABIP (batting average of balls in play) so far this season (min 75 innings pitched): 6. Jason Marquis 8. Rich Hill 21. Ted Lilly 29. Carlos Zambrano Z has his highest BABIP in 3 years. Ted Lilly has had 3 years of league average BABIP and 3 years below average in the past 6 years-this years number is not particularly unusual for him. There isn't much data on Hill, although last year was similar to this years (and significantly below league average). Marquis is the only one who hasn't shown a number like this years, and he has had a below average BABIP each of the last 3 years. As a whole, expecting pitchers to maintain a similar BABIP doesn't end up proving out. However, some individual pitchers can maintain a consistently average or better BABIP, and the fact that out of those 4 pitchers you mentioned, there isn't a single season in the last 3 years in which even one of those pitchers was below average in BABIP. They are good bets to be above average in that department, and that can skew the team defense metric.

I don't think that will be for long. It seems to me pretty likely at this point that when Petrick is available to come back that Pie will be the position player demoted in order to get back to 12 pitchers.

Let me the first to say not really then :D Seriously though, the only day he would have started was Saturday, and Ward was 1 for 3 with a RS, an RBI, and a BB, so I don't think the Cubs really missed Floyd this weekend. They have to find another bat that can hit left-handers well, if that be a big bat that can hit both sides well or a platoon player that kills left-handers. The offense is ok against right-handers (above average, an upgrade could make it great) but it is just terrible against left-handers (under a .300 OBP now against left-handers), and so if the Cubs don't have the resources to get a big bat they at least need to go find a player who only hits left-handers well and get them.

My guess is that there is probably at least a 50/50 chance that Mateo is wearing another uniform next month. He has some major league experience, which other clubs like to see, but he probably isn't on Hendry's do not trade list. If there is a deal done, Mateo will probably be the pitching prospect included.

Wow. Tough crowd. Can't really get too excited about a 4-3 trip against the likes of the Nationals and the Pirates. It's not exciting, but it's not terrible either. It's just kind of there.

7-0 or 6-1 on the road is an unrealistic expectation-I said that before the trip started. Look to how many teams in the NL. It's not easy to even win 7 out of 10 (before today, the Cubs were the only team in the NL to have a 7-3 record or better in their last 10 games). If we were at home against these two teams, then maybe 6-1, but on the road the highest I think one can expect is 5-2. Add in the fact the Cubs faced 3 left-handers this week, and the expectation probably goes down to 4-3, and that's exactly what they did (beat the 4 right-handers, lose to the 3 left-handers).

Taking a quick look at Boise, I of course am impressed with Donaldson's start: 17 AB's, 2 HR, 2 2B, 4BB/5K .353/.476/.824 I also think Ty Wright could end up being a pretty good prospect, and his Boise numbers so far would indicate that as well: 59 AB's, 2 HR, 6 2B, 1 3B, 7BB/5K, .305/.406/.542, 3 SB/1 CS I'm especially impressed with the strikeout to walk ratio especially when you consider it with the power numbers.

Harris is right up with most of those guys. I can't say it's a big problem that they are listed-everybody listed is an absolutely fantastic lineman. Harris could have easily made the list though and there would have been no problem because he is just as good. I definitely would have put him over Pryce at this point though-the others are debatable (I think he's about equal to most of the people on the list, although it is really hard to compare tackles in different types of defenses).

Two pretty long extra inning games going on. Mets-Astros heading to the 15th, and Red Sox-Tigers are in the 13th.

I really don't understand the Cubs power outage. This is a team that should be hitting quite a few more home runs than they are. Ramirez is slightly under what he should be. Soriano is still under what he should be. Lee is of course way under. Jones is way under. Floyd is under. Ward is under. Murton was under when he was here. DeRosa is like the only person who is over what is expected, and he's only on pace for about the same number of home runs as last year. The thing is-people like Lee, Ward, and Floyd have all hit the ball hard a good amount of the time, but all have had troubles with elevating the ball for home runs. Do you think there could be anything in the coaching that could be causing this? It's quite a mystery how so many decent to great power hitters can all have power problems in the same year, and yet many of them are hitting for average still, and sometimes career bests in average.

So far, quite a good day for the Cubs. Cubs win, Brewers lose, Cardinals lose, Diamondbacks lose, Braves lose. If the Marlins can beat the Dodgers, it will be quite a day.

No. Gallagher, Eyre, and Wuertz pitched in relief last night.

he's good until he goes 0-4 tomorrow, then he should be released immediately Ah, that's not Jones's fault, it's Lou's for starting him against the left-hander tomorrow :D (not that I expect him to-it will be about the same lineup tomorrow as it was yesterday).

It does look like that rest did some Jones good. 3 doubles in the past game and a half, a walk fighting back from an 0-2 count, and he should have had a single on that ball in the 1st. His swing doesn't look nearly as bad as it did a couple of weeks ago either.

Colvin with 2 K's and a HR so far today.

I've seen this a lot lately. Here's a question I have... who has the best record since June 2nd, or June 1st? Obviously not the Cubs, otherwise they would just say that. Not necessarily-that's just the time when the Cubs started winning. If they had done it since June 2nd, the Cubs might still have the best record since then, but the overall record wouldn't look as impressive.