CubColtPacer

102 RBI for Soriano in the leadoff spot? with Izturis in the 8-hole? I don't know, that's crazy talk if I ever heard it. Not really-Soriano had 95 RBI's last year getting a .244/.318/.326 out of the 8 spot, and a .183/.243/.269 out of the 9 spot. That should be able to be at least duplicated by Cub hitters, and quite possibly exceeded-also considering the Cubs will likely score more runs than the Nationals did, so Soriano will get more AB's and more RBI chances-I don't see how 102 is crazy at all if he hits 40 HR again. plate appearances, plate appearances. He'll get more of both :D

the thing that gets me is that they didn't even need to give him "fair market value" as he was never on the market. they had a closed negotiation going on, lovie was never a free agent. the bears proved to be more than fair. Fair market value is based on what other coaches have received with extensions. Coaches don't go on the FA market very often, as teams give their coaches about what other similar coaches have gotten. Lovie's deal is very fair-in fact, it's very similar to the deal Dungy got a couple of years ago.

102 RBI for Soriano in the leadoff spot? with Izturis in the 8-hole? I don't know, that's crazy talk if I ever heard it. Not really-Soriano had 95 RBI's last year getting a .244/.318/.326 out of the 8 spot, and a .183/.243/.269 out of the 9 spot. That should be able to be at least duplicated by Cub hitters, and quite possibly exceeded-also considering the Cubs will likely score more runs than the Nationals did, so Soriano will get more AB's and more RBI chances-I don't see how 102 is crazy at all if he hits 40 HR again.

Didn't Manning give the Colts a little salary relief too or was that another QB? Yeah, although it really was an accounting move that was expected since the day that he signed the contract. Basically, he had a 10 million dollar signing (roster) bonus, which was going to count all against the cap, and they converted it to a signing bonus, and now only 2 million of it will count against this year's cap. Thanks for the help-guess I started thinking faster than I typed. I have edited it now.

I think Norm Charlton, Randy Myers, and Rob Dibble might disagree with you. Those 3 did have somewhat of a closer by committee, but except for 1 year, there was a clear preference on closer-it just changed from year to year. 1990 Myers-31 saves Dibble-11 Charlton-2 Layana-2 1991 Dibble-31 Myers-6 Power-3 2 others with 1 1992 Charlton-26 Dibble-25 Bankhead-1 By 1993, Charlton and Myers were gone. The Reds never really had a 3 way closer by committee-1 year they went with a true 2-headed closer by committee, but the other years they had a clear closer and went to another option not nearly as often.

Didn't Manning give the Colts a little salary relief too or was that another QB? Yeah, although it really was an accounting move that was expected since the day that he signed the contract. Basically, he had a 10 million dollar roster bonus, which was going to count all against the cap, and they converted it to a signing bonus, and now only 2 million of it will count against this year's cap.

The Colts are expected to release Brandon Stokley-he's been speculated to be one of the top FA wide receivers because the FA receiving class is so weak. The Colts would have been paying him a whole lot of money in the next 3 years, and with the Colts liking to go with 2 tight ends and Stokely being injured a pretty good amount, it just came down to him not being really worth it.

I would take that also. I figured they could get a second rounder from some team. I don't know how reputable KNBR is as far as reporting rumors but they are the major sports radio station out here. Why not go after Carr and use the 1st pick on Johnson? That's what I would do. David Carr might retire, that's why-he went from one of the worst lines in history to go to another of the worst lines in history-that would be some of the worst luck for him I've ever seen if that happened :D

So a team desperate for a second baseman can't go out and pick one up off free agency in May? It seems like that rule has many exceptions. Besides, I don't understand the spirit of the rule in the first place. Why exactly does Clemens have to play the whole year anyway? I mean, I'm not happy whatsoever what he's doing either, but it's just as much the fault of all the teams interested for letting him do whatever he wants.

Thanks for posting this Raisin-little things like this make me turn on the game just in time to see the series of timeouts and than Law's shot. It's always nice to see the end of a great game.

This is why I think having "power" at "traditional power position", is sometimes overrated. I agree, it's definitely overrated. You need power hitters on your team, that's certain, but what position it comes from is really irrelevant. I think that old baseball rule comes from the fact that there are more power hitting corner outfielders than shortstops and second basemen. However, that is itself a result of the emphasis of defense at other positions, so guys that are below average defensively but great hitters seem to invariably get moved to LF, RF, or if they're relatively surehanded and/or morbidly slow, 1B. That's what it really is-Murton happens to play a position where the offensive standards are much higher because all the top offensive people who struggle defensively get moved there. Normally you have to get a power threat from the corners because there is so few possible power threats from the middle. The Cubs though happen to have a couple of them, and that really allows them to have sufficient power without the need to replace Murton. It usually though is easier to find both a Murton type player up the middle and a power option in the corners then to try to procure power up the middle-the Cubs are fortunate to be in a situation where they can have flexibility at some of their other positions with their needs because of people like Barrett and Soriano.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm PFT nails another one. Well, I did say that it wasn't that trustworthy, cut me some slack here :D That's great news to hear about Lovie's extension-he's a great coach, and he will continue to serve you well. I'm very happy for all of you.

Can someone (CCP or someone else) explain why the gap would be getting wider? Why would OBP be getting less predictive and OPS more predictive over the years? I can explain this. There are several reasons. The chart you guys looked at should be thrown down the drain. It's only four seasons looking at fourteen teams each season. To jump to any correlation conclusions with n=14 for 4 sets is a bit premature. Of course you guys are right, the relative correlation coefficients have indeed been spacing out a bit. There are reasons for this, but here's the graph since 1900 which each season (both leagues, with the exception of 1900). Generally speaking the standard deviation for the league in OBP and OPS have both gone down over the last one hundred years, but it's been more vital for OBP as it has gone down quicker. The standard deviation is included in the correlation coefficient. Secondly, comparing the change in this to the change in the standard deviation of OPS isn't smart. You should use SLG, because slugging has a much higher rate and over the last thirty seasons it has obviously had a greater impact on scoring runs. So it's driven out some of the correlation so to speak for OBP. eh i dont mean SLG as much as I mean IsoP. http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/6530/charts1yx2.gif Thanks for the explanation. I actually used more stats that were in the chart (that was Tim's work) but my research had only gone back about 10 years or so over all of the major leagues-so I'm very happy that you posted that, because it was much more succinct that anything I would have done.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm The bolded isn't even close to true. I'm not exactly sure how you can be sure of that-there has been no report that says that the Bears are likely to pay Lovie what his value is. That doesn't mean it still won't happen, but it's certainly not a sure thing that they are willing to pay him 5 million.

I know PFT is not the most reliable of places, so this could be completely false. However, they do break things from time to time, so I just thought that I'd throw this out there: http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Thank you, and thanks for the correction. Since OBP is more predictive than SLG, it would suggest that some OPS formula that somehow places more value on OBP would possibly be even better. That's true, and is the weight that Sully is saying-it's not nearly as large as is sometimes reported (3 to 1, 4 to 1?-that's just crazy-the numbers do not indicate that OBP is nearly that important) but there should be a small weight added to OBP to make OPS even more predictive.

Ok, here is Tim's article on it from a couple years back: http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/ArticleText.php?ArticleID=47 OPS was easily the most predictive, and from my looks at the last couple years of statistics, that gap is just getting wider.

I'm quoting you, but I'll reference everyone. Sure, OPS is a flawed stat, but so are all the others-OPS still is the best indicator of runs scored out there. Sure, it's not complete, but shouldn't it still be held in high regard for how predictive it is? I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I think OBP is actually more predictive of runs scored. I think someone on this board calculated it a while back, that if you look at OPS, OBP, and SLG, OBP ends up being the best predictor of the three in runs scored. I don't remember enough of my stats classes to calculate it myself. Anyone else remember that thread? Nah, it was actually found that OPS was much better-I'll try to find that thread though.

I'm quoting you, but I'll reference everyone. Sure, OPS is a flawed stat, but so are all the others-OPS still is the best indicator of runs scored out there. Sure, it's not complete, but shouldn't it still be held in high regard for how predictive it is?

I'm not really counting on Jones or Soriano learning enough to actually improve. But the big difference is those are actually decent ballplayers. Novoa is just another hard throwing wild man. I don't see how Lou's presence could possibly change that. Maybe not Lou but somebody over the off season. Didn't he pitch over the winter? I just believe to not always have preconcieved ideas on how good a player is either. Personally, I've been burned by that and I've learned not to do it. Hard throwing wildman...I can just picture what that type of player would look like! I think you're more likely to get burned thinking a bad pitcher will suddenly improve, than assuming he has not. I agree but you don't just write it off until you find out all the facts. Another thing, what makes Novoa a bad pitcher? Has he always had a 1.8 WHIP the whole time because there has to be a reason why Hendry traded for him in the first place. It was mostly based on potential-at the time of the trade it seemed somewhat likely that Novoa could develop. So far, that hasn't happened (he actually had a 109 ERA+ last year, but that's not really the best way to measure a reliever).

Being a closer is more about mental toughness than anything. Most teams best relievers are their closers, because those relievers are good against all types of hitters and have the mental toughness needed. However, the Cubs are in a situation where 3-4 of their relievers have all the capabilities to be a closer. With that, they don't necessarily need their best pitcher back there, but can rather use their best pitcher in other situations. If Dempster bounces back at all he should be fine back there.

I hadnt see Houston play so i can't comment on his skills compared to Hall's. Hall being the first CB selected is a good indicator that this CB class doesn possess the lock down corner. If he is selected first i think thats more of an indicator than the publicity he garnered from playing for Michigan or how good of a CB he truly is. #1 by default, any other year he is not the first CB taken, however he would still be 1st rounder. He really hadnt got much publicity in his four years, Marlin Jackson got much more publicity than Hall ever had and in the end didnt possess the coverage/ball skills nor the timed speed Hall just put up. Hall>Marlin but by the publicity it would be reversed dramtically. I definitely appreciate Marlin's cover skills a lot more after this postseason-in fact, I think Marlin will be burned into every Colts fan's memory for a long, long time :D -I've actually heard many Colts fans say that it was more fun winning that AFC title game than winning the Super Bowl was.

Murton hitting second!!! OMG!!!!! Sweet! Man, things are going too good this Spring. Let's not get too excited. Murton might only be playing, and in the two hole, because we're facing a lefty. Which is a major bummer. That's my guess as well. I think Murton will be playing against some-right handers, but I don't know how often he'll be in the 2 spot against them. Even if he bats in the 2 spot against left-handers though, that's still an improvement though and one that was unexpected (considering that there have been rumors about 3 possible people in the 2 spot, and Murton was not one of those hitters).

Realistically, I wouldn't have wanted to trade for Young and pay him that kind of money anyway-he'll be 31 at the end of the year, and 16 per plus the players to trade for him? No thanks.

Okay, that's one thing, but Wuertz doesn't have to have a better spring than 2006 to win a job. That's the silly thing. It would be silly to option him just to keep Miller, unless Miller looks really good. Basically, the only reason he should be optioned is if everybody else is healthy and looks really good. That's the only point where he should be squeezed. And that's the least likely scenario. When you're saying everyone else though, it's really only Prior, Miller, and Wuertz-3 men fighting for 2 spots. If Prior is healthy, he'll get one of them-so then it just comes down to who pitches better-Miller or Wuertz. If they pitch about the same, then Wuertz should get the nod.