CubColtPacer

Marmol's not exactly having the best of 2 day stretches here: Right now, as I type this, here are his stats of the 2 days combined: 2/3 inning, 5 H, 7 ER, 3 BB, 2 HR Ok, make that 1 full IP now, and 1 K

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have. Let me be a bit more clear on my angle, because I feel there is a stronger emphasis on OPS than OBP when correlating Runs scored. When you look at offensive numbers, there is nearly a direct correlation between OPS and Runs Scored. For example, all of the teams in the top 9 for runs scored in the NL are in the top 9 for OPS, and the order only shifts slightly, with teams within 2 in ranking across the board. As expected therefore, the teams with the lowest OPS are also worst in Runs Scored As we would expect, the reverse is true when evaluating the stats from the pitching perspective. The 5 teams in the NL with the lowest OPS against are also the 5 teams that have given up the fewest Runs Scored. There are no anamolies on offense. But there are two teams with anamolies on the pitching side - The Cubs and the Brewers. Each has given up more Runs Scored than the OPS against would suggest. Maybe I am just allowing my optomism for the future to shine through, but it really seems to me that more runs are scoring than the mean would suggest. It sounds like you are overcomplicating things to make the Cubs look better than they are. They give up the most walks, and almost the most HR. But they also strike out the most. That is why they appear to give up "too many" runs per hit. The hits they do give up are big hits, and the walks mean more of those HR are with runners on base. It's just the same as batting. A team can be lucky one year, and have a high RISP one year. Look at Washington and San Fransisco this year for example San Fransisco-.328 OBP, .421 SLG, 749 OPS Washington-.340 OBP, .422 SLG, .762 Which team should score more runs? Obviously Washington-but San Fran has them by 2 runs this season-Here is the reason Why In Scoring Position San Fransisco-.368 OBP, .440 SLG, .808 OPS Washington-.353 OBP, .394 SLG, .747 OPS Of course, we know RISP isn't sustainable. So, Washington should have a better offense next year if they keep the same people. The same applies to pitching-here are two more teams. Cubs-.344 OBP/.435 SLG/.779 OPS Pittsburgh-.362 OBP/.440 SLG/.802 OPS The Cubs would be expected to give up less runs in this scenario-but they haven't (Pittsburgh has given up 21 less runs). Why? Scoring Position Pittsburgh-.367 OBP/.406 SLG/.773 SLG Cubs-.366 OBP/.429 SLG/.795 SLG The Cubs have given up a much greater percentage of XBH in key situations this year, even though Pittsburgh has given up many more runners. Again, stats with RISP are not sustainable-so the Cubs should have better pitching than the Pirates next season (if the teams had remained the same). The answer is yes-the Cubs have had a bad pitching staff this year, but their total number of runs is greater than their OBP, SLG, and OPS would seem to suggest.

Anybody know why Mateo is out?

With this lineup, it doesn't much matter if Cedeno is the 2 spot or Murton gets moved there, with Moore batting 5th and Izturis batting 6th. There really isn't a good way to construct a lineup with all the hitters that are in it right now.

It would be-but the production out of right field would be around the top 5 right fields in the game-and of course it would also add a huge bat to the bench every day.

Does anybody think that Alou would agree to be a part-time player next year? I'm not sure he would, but him and Jacque in right field would be a dynamic duo. What salary do you think he will command, and do you think he will be a starter somewhere?

I don't think very many people would question that-it's just if he was worth 13 million for a slightly above average offensive shortstop that has serious question marks defensively as well. Furcal has serious question marks defensively? That's news to me. To be fair, the price for Pierre is 3 pitching prospects, including 2 top-10 prospects. I live near Atlanta, and the overall feeling during his time in Atlanta was that Furcal made some plays that other shortstops might not make, but he made so many errors-especially throwing errors that gave the other team too many baserunners and extra bases that they shouldn't have. What did they say he had this year-24 errors? He's not nearly as bad as his errors would suggest, but I don't think his overall impact is any more than average at SS. As far as the second point, I think the price for Pierre was even crazier than the price for Furcal was-Furcal would have been a better move, but neither of them would have been good moves IMO.

I don't think very many people would question that-it's just if he was worth 13 million for a slightly above average offensive shortstop that has serious question marks defensively as well.

I didn't notice that was post #1000..should have looked at that I guess. Does anybody think the air is pretty heavy tonight? I thought at least 1 of those 3 balls we have hit should have gone out, and at least 1 more should have hit the wall. I was definitely surprised when all 3 of them were caught on the warning track.

Actually, we're both wrong. He had 2 hits (Furcal, Kent) and 2 BBs. Gooz: 2 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 2 BB, 1 K, 36 pitches. LOL..that we were, thanks for the correction.

Well, a couple of decently hard hit fly balls that inning, but the Cubs go down 1-2-3. It's 1-0 Dodgers after 1-it really looked like Guz settled down in the last part of the 1st, so hoepfully he can continue that. BTW Raisin, just for your pitching line, Guz had 2 BB's and 1 H given up in the first-you have it the other way around.

Yuck..one of my pet peeves recently has people spelling the word lose as loose. You see it all the time on message boards, but it was just on the WGN graphic. It said "The Dodgers have blown four 5 plus run leads to loose." It is just absolutely rampant recently.

Glendon, take care of yourself. My thoughts and prayers are with you tonight, and may your doctors find the right way to treat you so that you can have a long and healthy life.

BTW, I'm 4 for 4 now this season in breaking up no-hitters late in ballgames when I start watching. I tuned in just to see the Kennedy at-bat..I also did it for the Z against Houston game when it went to the 8th, and 2 other first at-bats this year. Guess I should stop turning on games late.

It's not that Theriot has lost his job. They have said they are going to split time the rest of the season. Bynum starting does not say anything bad about Theriot-it just means they feel the players are close to equal, and they would like to see them both get time. Theriot was hitting significantly better than Bynum when Bynum came back-has that continued? Here are their stats for September (which is about half the time they have been splitting time-a few of their at-bats in August came when they were a DP combo, and yes, Theriot was much better than Bynum in August) Player A (28 AB's)-.250/.382/.500 Player B (17 AB's)-.294/.455/.588 What's the difference between these two players? Who's hotter at the plate? It's hard to tell. It looks like Player B has a good advantage, but the small number of at-bats makes it hard. What can be found is that both players are doing very, very well. BTW, Player A is Ryan Theriot Player B is Freddie Bynum There is a distinct difference in hitting styles between Ryan Theriot and Freddie Bynum. Theriot works a count, takes a walk, and has - so far - been pretty good in the clutch (I am sure someone can dig up the stats, I don't have time right now). Bynum has a worse BB/K ratio, but has good speed and is a "Baker type" because he seems to swing as much as possible. To me, in a pinch I want a guy like Bynum (I thought Randall Simon was the ultimate pinch hitter). I would agree with you that Theriot has had a much better BB/K ratio and been better in the clutch this year. Their P/PA don't reveal that Theriot works the count while Bynum swings at anything and everything though-Bynum is seeing 4.04 P/PA, and Theriot is seeing 3.48 P/PA. Plus, Bynum's BB/PA have gotten better every single month of his career. I just don't see much difference in their hitting styles much right now, with the exception that Bynum strikes out more than Theriot.

If the Dodgers are in a hurry to get out from under Drew's contract, then maybe they take Jones for Drew straight up? Jones @ 2/9 maybe looks better to them than Drew @ 3/33. Obviously the talent/production isn't balanced, but we've all seen crazier salary dumps than that. $24M saved is nothing to sneeze at, especially these days, when GMs are swapping contracts as much as they are players. But, does the extra $23M and 1 season you have to give Drew result in real offensive impact? Is it worth the 50 extra points in OBP and 20 less in SLG? That's a big assumption that there will be that much a drop in SLG. This year, Jones holds a 20 point edge in SLG, but in 2005, Drew had a SLG of 90 points higher as well as an OBP of nearly that amount. In 2004, Drew had a SLG on 140 points higher. I think that it's just as likely that Jones and Drew will SLG at identical clips over the next two years, and also likely that Drew could outslug him. Taken along with the fact that Drew is going to get on base at 50-100 points higher than Jones, yes it is worth the extra. That's certainly true-but it gets more complicated when you add this. Is Jacque and a good platoon partner (costing together between 7 and 8 million dollars for 2 years) have more dollar for dollar value than Drew+a backup outfielder at 12 million dollars combined? I really think it does-a good platoon partner for Jacque still makes Drew's production moderately better. When you throw in though that 1) It's 4-5 million dollars more out of your budget for the option with Drew, 2) Drew is an injury risk and the backup outfielder has a decent shot of starting 30-40 games or possibly more, which will drag down the production at the position and 3) Whoever is on the bench, Jacque or the Platoon Partner will be a better option off the bench than the backup outfielder making a million, then I think the first option is the better option.

It's not that Theriot has lost his job. They have said they are going to split time the rest of the season. Bynum starting does not say anything bad about Theriot-it just means they feel the players are close to equal, and they would like to see them both get time. Theriot was hitting significantly better than Bynum when Bynum came back-has that continued? Here are their stats for September (which is about half the time they have been splitting time-a few of their at-bats in August came when they were a DP combo, and yes, Theriot was much better than Bynum in August) Player A (28 AB's)-.250/.382/.500 Player B (17 AB's)-.294/.455/.588 What's the difference between these two players? Who's hotter at the plate? It's hard to tell. It looks like Player B has a good advantage, but the small number of at-bats makes it hard. What can be found is that both players are doing very, very well. BTW, Player A is Ryan Theriot Player B is Freddie Bynum

The problem with that is that Bynum is just as good as the rest of our bench. He's better than Mabry, he's better than Cedeno. He has almost the same stats as Pagan. The only one who he's significantly behind right now is Theriot-and while I think Theriot is a little better than Bynum, we know that Theriot's numbers are pretty inflated. Also, Bynum has been permanantly scarred in most Cubs fans minds for what he did in April and early May-his first major league experience! Here are his numbers since then (since May 8th to be exact): .292/.357/.494 (89 AB's) Are those numbers inflated? I'm sure they are. Has he been a good hitter since that point? Absolutely-and I don't think he's any worse than the rest of the bench.

Here are comments from Bynum and Baker after the game: Pretty good for Dusty. He's right, you shouldn't say something to a player that has been that humiliated during the game, but the inference is that he is going to say something to Bynum, he just hadn't by right after the game. Combine that with that he did take Bynum out of the ballgame after Lowe left, and I have no problem with this one.

I'm glad to see Izturis get that hit-he was really having a tough time of it the last 2 days since he came back, and that has to help his confidence a little bit as he works into getting back to playing (which of course the season will end a week after that happens for him with how much is left)

Soto's OBP so far would be low enough to actually make sac bunting the right move there if he could actually put it down. Soto hasn't had enough plate appearances to have a statistically relevant OBP. And why not just leave Aardsma in to bunt if you're going to call for a sacrifice? I would agree that he doesn't have enough appearances-I was just being a little sarcastic there :D And I might not have left Aardsma in, but if I was going to bunt, I would have definitely brought in a starting pitcher rather than one of my last two position players.

I think so. He was-I'm guessing Soto will stay in the game here to move the pitcher's spot one spot down-Gameday only has one other player listed on our bench at all.

Soto's OBP so far would be low enough to actually make sac bunting the right move there if he could actually put it down.

Big Credit tonight to the bullpen...5.1 IP so far, 2 H, 0 ER..looks like they may have to do a little more work tonight, but a very good job so far!

Furcal's trying to steal Bynum's thunder tonight-that's 2 errors for him as well.