CubColtPacer

You want to bench our 3rd best hitter so far?

Soriano Howry Lee Ramirez Barrett Jones DeRosa Izturis Murton Jones, DeRosa, Izturis due up in the 8th.

I'll go ahead and edit those into my post as well-just a minute on that.

Are there any studies that look at lead-lag relationships in Pythag WL % vs actual WL %? I havent seen any evidence that Pythag WL % has strong predictive value, but maybe I missed something. Just to be precise, the claim is that the Cubs won't necessarily start winning games at the rate indicated by their current pythag %; the pythag number could just as easily drop toward 42%, the current actual WL. No one said anything about "little chance". That's an interesting question. These are the teams last year that were 2 games or more off their Pythagorean projection after April. I am putting their actual winning percentage after April, their expected winning percentage, and then what their actual winning percentage at the end of the year was. Edit: I also am including the ending Pythagorean percentage per a request. Red Sox. Actual-.577, Pythag-.461, End-.530, endpyth-.500 Yankees. Actual-.541, Pythag-.667, End-.598, endpyth-.586 Atlanta. Actual-.440, Pythag-.520, End. .488, endpyth-.525 Washington. Actual-.308, Pythag-.423, End-.438, endpyth-.493 Florida. Actual-.261, Pythag-.435, End-.481, endpyth-.432 Cincy. Actual-.692, Pythag-.577, End-.493, endpyth-.469 Houston. Actual-.630, Pythag-.560, End-.506, endpyth-.512 Cubs. Actual.583, Pythag-.500, End-.407, endpyth-.432 Pirates. Actual-.257, Pythag-.333, End-.413, endpyth-.438 Rockies-Actual-.577, Pythag-.500, End-.469, endpyth-.500 San Fran-Actual-.520, Pythag-.440, End-.472, endpyth-.472 Los Angeles-Actual-.462, Pythag-.538, End-.543, endpyth-.537 The 2 AL teams finished closer to their actual percentage than their Pythagorean percentage. The NL teams? All 10 of them finished closer to their Pythagorean percentage at the end of April than their actual percentage, but for some of them neither one was very accurate. The Cubs mid-point would be .500-so from this one season data, it would seem to indicate that they are likely to be over .500 at the end of the year. From looking at the 2005 data quickly, it looks like a couple teams were closer to their actual, but most were again closer to their pythagorean numbers.

Would the Packers have enough cap room to be able to keep Moss if he hadn't restructured? That's what I heard was the biggest hangup on the deal-Moss was only willing to re-structure his deal to go to the Patriots, and nobody else had the ability to take on the contract otherwise. BTW, the Packers selected a very interesting prospect there-OT Allen Barbre.

I have my worries about Guzman being a starter. He came back last year and didn't dominate Triple A (but I didn't expect him to coming off the injury). When he came to the majors, he was great in his 5 bullpen appearances, but terrible in his 10 starts. Now we come to this year. In the games where he came in during the late innings in the spring, he did quite well. The one game he started, he had trouble finishing hitters off and that cost him. Then he gets put in the bullpen, and again he does quite well with lots of K's. Now he goes down to the minors and is struggling again. I'm not saying that he will flame out. If he is working on things in the minors, that could certainly be the cause of a couple poor outings. It's also possible that it will just take a little more time and experience coming back from the injury to really have it click for him in the starting rotation. He has earned a few starts in the majors, and he should get that chance. If he doesn't do well and the Cubs do replace him in the majors though (I don't know with who) then I hope they send him to the bullpen, because even if he's not effective starting I think he can still be a very effective reliever. Hopefully, he does well and the Cubs never have to make that decision.

My guess is the rain delay makes it even more likely that Pie, Blanco, and Theriot get the start tomorrow.

I checked my fantasy league tonight and simply laughed: they have this line listed for Cole Hamels: 7.0 IP, 16 H, 3 R, 6 BB, 11 K Apparently in their mind Hamels is the king of the inherited runners:) I finally looked up his real line: 7.0 IP, 8 H, 3 R, 3 BB, 6 K

There's a big difference between 2006 and 2007. In 2006 the team was one of the worst in both hitting categories and pitching categories. This team is 6th in the NL in runs/game, 10th in OBP, 6th in SLG, 6th in OPS, 5th in ERA-all those would indicate they should probably be one of the top 6 teams in the NL in wins at least. Instead, they are tied for 12th.

Maybe overall, but not in close games: Hitting in close and late: SF: .264/.308/.372 Cubs: .211/.298/.250 Now, pitching it is the opposite: Cubs: 2.58 ERA San Fran: 4.11 ERA The team has simply not hit well late in close ballgames. It's hard to figure out exactly why.

According to ESPN radio, the Panthers have released Keyshawn Johnson today. This move came out of left field for me. Do any of you want him for your team? One forum I saw said the Pats should pick him up-might as well have Keyshawn, Moss, and Stallworth on the same team all demanding the ball :D

Then what was with all the "Soriano will play one position all year" talk? I think the plan, once they moved him to CF, was to keep him in CF. They blamed his slow start on the move and used the injury as an excuse to bail on that plan. But I don't think they ever planned on playing Soriano in CF until Pie was ready. You don't give a franchise caliber contract to a guy who you expect to keep a spot warm for a rookie. The Soriano will play one position all year talk mysteriously vanished after Soriano agreed to play CF. The team tried half the winter to not have Soriano play CF, they weren't exactly going to reverse course and have him play CF all year just because he started the year there, and I'm sure that they explained that to him before they accepted his volunteering to play the position. I have to agree with Jersey's view. Nobody gives a player $136M and then asks him to play out of position for half a season for the sake of a prospect who may or may not come up and take the position. I think Hendry really believed that Soriano could be a good longterm CF. That's the thing-the Cubs didn't ask Soriano to do this. That view doesn't fit the available evidence-here goes: 1) Soriano is signed-Bruce Miles reports that Soriano has been signed to play one of the corners, not CF. 2) Reports come out that Henry is trying to trade for a stop-gap CF and trade Jones. The quotes were constant "We are not going to do anything to block Pie" "We feel he can be something special, and we are not going to tie up CF long-term" 3. Soriano suddenly volunteers to play CF a month and a half after he signs-the trade talks with Jones stop, and so do the statements that they are not going to move Soriano around between positions. 4. After just a few games, they move Soriano out of CF, even though he didn't look nearly as bad as some of the other converted CF's around the league (Bill Hall for example). None of this supports that they wanted Soriano to be the long-term CF all along.

Most really good offenses have at least one everyday natural OF who routinely puts up 900+ OPS numbers, and at least one guy who, if he isn't great in the OPS department, does have really good OBP. The Cubs have nobody that fits either bill, and the closest they do have is currently the 5th OF (Murton with the OBP). They could easily go through 2007 without a single OF putting up an OPS+ in excess of 105-110 (above average). The Yankees haven't had an OF reach .900 either of the last two years, although they have had players close. Cleveland had one OF reach .900 in 2006, and the highest OF in 2005 was .832. The White Sox had one OF over .900 in 2006, but both of their other OF's were under .700. The Phillies have had a couple OF's just a little under .900, but hasn't had an OF reach .900 each of the last 2 years. Atlanta didn't have anybody in the OF reach .900 last year, although they had one close. Two of the other 3 OF's with significant playing time though had a .742 and a .727. Texas had a couple OF's somewhat near .900 (although none over and one of them was Carlos Lee for less than half the year). The Mets had one great OF that was well over .900, but the rest were less than spectacular easily being under .800. The Tigers had a good part-time OF at .882, but their best full-time OF was at 827. Boston had a great OF-one guy well over 1.000, one over .800, and the rest between .700 and .800. The Dogers were also pretty good-one a little under .900, and then several between .750 and .900. I see the Cubs as the most similar to a team like the Dodgers. They didn't have anybody spectacular in their OF, but they didn't have all that many at-bats go to terrible players either. There simply aren't that many .900+ outfielders though, especially ones on the better offenses, and there especially isn't that many people who are almost a lock to put up 900 or over.

Then what was with all the "Soriano will play one position all year" talk? I think the plan, once they moved him to CF, was to keep him in CF. They blamed his slow start on the move and used the injury as an excuse to bail on that plan. But I don't think they ever planned on playing Soriano in CF until Pie was ready. You don't give a franchise caliber contract to a guy who you expect to keep a spot warm for a rookie. The Soriano will play one position all year talk mysteriously vanished after Soriano agreed to play CF. The team tried half the winter to not have Soriano play CF, they weren't exactly going to reverse course and have him play CF all year just because he started the year there, and I'm sure that they explained that to him before they accepted his volunteering to play the position.

Anytime you give franchise superstar money to a guy without knowing what position he'll play, and without any reasonable assurance that he'll produce at an elite level regardless of position, you're doing it wrong. Hendry's whole plan for the 2007 OF seems to have been contructed around the idea that Soriano could be a longterm CF, which was never more than wishful thinking. If by long-term you mean three months, then I would agree. They knew that Pie would be up soon, and so they first tried to get a stop-gap CF-but when they couldn't find one of those, they turned to Soriano playing CF-but he would have moved to one of the corners when Pie came up for good anyway. It just so happens that because of the injury Pie came up way early, and before Jones was traded, which has caused the huge logjam in the corner outfield.

Can't they keep all 3? It's not unheard of to have 3 TE's is it? As long as Clark and Gilmore can fill in on special teams this should work. If Reid beats one of them out, fine. But I like having the blocking TE, the all-around TE (Clark) and the pass catching threat in Olsen. Only Olsen will be making serious coin, and his salary cap number can be partially taken from the WR position, since they only have one guy making a lot of money, and Olse's role will be similar to what they'd get from a receiver. It's not unusual at all to have 3 TE's on the roster. Typically, a team will keep 3, and some teams keep 4 occasionally. I don't think drafting Olsen signifies the end for Clark. The Bears will be able to do a lot out of a 2 TE formation, and Clark will be quite valuable in that because he can both stay in and block or go out on a route. The Bears ability to mix up their plays got quite better with the pick of Olsen, and that can only help Grossman.

If Floyd wasn't here and Pie wasn't up, the OF would be Soriano, Murton and Jones, and I don't think many people would be clamoring for another guy. And if it was, it wouldn't be the redundent Floyd. Hendry bashers blame Hendry for the sub .500 record during his tenure because he is responsible for everything. Excusing him for one bad signing because he made another good one makes no sense. Exactly. The Floyd signing was unneccessary because we had sooo many guys that could play the corners. The fact that Jones can play CF made him more valuable so had I been in Hendry's shoes, I'd have passed on Floyd altogether. If you subtract Floyd and Pie, you still have 6 guys that can play the OF in Murton, Soriano, Jones, Theriot, DeRosa, and Ward. At the time though, the team didn't know if Theriot could play the OF or not, and I don't think anyone was counting on Ward to play OF. The Floyd signing looks poor now only because Pie came up so quickly (which was partly due to the Soriano injury). If Pie had been held off until June or July (which looked very possible in the offseason) and Floyd had not been signed, the bench would have been Ward/Theriot/Pagan/Cedeno/Blanco. That's not a strong bench at all, and there would have been plenty of complaints that the bench was not producing whatsoever. When Hendry signed Floyd, it basically was a signal that Pie would not be up until Jones was traded. Pie's hot start, Soriano struggling a bit in CF, and Soriano's injury changed all that.

No, you can be sent back at any time. The Colts did that to a pitcher a year or two ago-their bullpen was very tired and so they pulled up a pitcher from the minors. He got there Sunday morning, went out to the bullpen, and they ended up not using him in the game. He was shipped out that night. The Colts? Can you tell I have been reading up a little bit on the NFL draft? :D

No, you can be sent back at any time. The Cubs did that to a pitcher a year or two ago-their bullpen was very tired and so they pulled up a pitcher from the minors. He got there Sunday morning, went out to the bullpen, and they ended up not using him in the game. He was shipped out that night.

Apparently, Len said Izturis would start in this game-makes sense in that he is 7 for 12 against Armas with 3 doubles, a triple, and a home run-I didn't know that there was any pitcher where Cesar had 5 XBH in 12 AB's.

This was another strange offensive game. The Cubs 1-4 hitters got on 9 times tonight, and that part of the lineup only produced 1 run. That is definitely unusual. Based on the overall OBP and SLG numbers and the hit distribution, the Cubs should have scored somewhere between 3-5 runs tonight. Unfortunately for the team, that didn't happen. After the second run scored in the 2nd, there were still plenty of chances. Theriot grounded out with runners on 1st and 3rd in the 2nd. Murton and Barrett both had chances to drive Ramirez in from scoring position in the 3rd. Ramirez had a chance to drive Theriot home in the 5th. Ramirez had another chance in the 7th with the bases loaded. Pie had a chance in the 8th with Barrett on 2nd. Finally, Lee had a chance in the 9th. So the team had at least one runner in scoring position in the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 8th that they couldn't get home. Finally, they would have had more chances if the bottom half of the lineup had been productive whatsoever-2/16 from Murton, Barrett, DeRosa, and Pie tonight.

Over 600 at-bats, Lee is now on pace for 90 doubles on the year.

fans don't vote for pitchers Which is very bizarre. All Star games are stupid anyway, and I don't really care about the voting. But what is the point of letting fans stuff ballots for hitters and not pitchers? Do they think fans aren't capable of judging what a quality pitcher is? It's all part of making the All-Star game as pointless and archaic as possible. Seriously. Home field advantage. In the Series. Decided in an exhibition game. Idiotic. It's not like deciding it randomly was much better. Well, it wasn't decided randomly, everybody knew which league would have it going into the year. It rotated, that's not random. Yeah, I just used random in the sense that it's not related to anything about the strength of the teams playing in it or the strength of the league. Personally, I wish they'd give it to the team with the best record, but if it's down to either rotating it from league to league each year or having it won in the All-Star game, I like the All-Star game idea a little better.

fans don't vote for pitchers Which is very bizarre. All Star games are stupid anyway, and I don't really care about the voting. But what is the point of letting fans stuff ballots for hitters and not pitchers? Do they think fans aren't capable of judging what a quality pitcher is? It's all part of making the All-Star game as pointless and archaic as possible. Seriously. Home field advantage. In the Series. Decided in an exhibition game. Idiotic. It's not like deciding it randomly was much better.

Strange the different impressions people have of the draft. I don't recall the Bears ranking much higher than C in the past few years, but alas, in the final analysis, the Bears have wound up having some of the best drafts of any team out there. The Lions and Cardinals almost always rate high, then all those great players they draft fail and it turns out they 'drafted' poorly. I think alot of this is what happens from here on out: good teams turn their players into productive components. Bad teams like the Cardinals could turn a crop of all-pros into a cavalcade of bums. I think that's part of what it is. There are 2 other big factors that come into play as well: 1) The good teams often have scouting departments that look a little deeper than the "big name" guys. They often take people that seem like reaches or that people don't really know much about because they realize that this person is great for their particular system. Teams like the Lions and Cardinals draft high talent players, but often they don't fit well into the system that they employ. 2) Good teams draft not only for present needs, but for future needs. Draft grades that go into the draft don't reflect that-often you'll hear a comment puzzled on why this team drafted a person where they are already strong. However, a good team has the replacements for possible FA losses already on the roster before that person leaves, and that comes through in previous drafts-unfortunately draft graders don't think that far ahead, so it always lowers their grade.