CubColtPacer

Put me down for a prediction of us scoring 7 tonight-Mabry goes 2 for 4 with 2 RBI's, Jones hits a HR, Pierre collects 2 hits as well.

This is what I would do. Offer Pierre arbitration-we would like him to decline, but if he accepts, it wouldn't be that bad to have him play CF for another year. Do not sign him to a multi-year deal.

I don't think anyone here is going to disagree with that. Approx the same in one category and better in the 2nd category is going to make that team better than the other. (Of course that doesn't work for the 2 teams that we've had a slightly better OBP and slightly better SLG and still have less runs than). Increasing either of them will help your team-the Cubs need OBP more, but only increasing one or the other this offseason won't help the Cubs be anything but average offensively. We need to increase both to have a good offense. Look at the A's. They have a slugging about 30 pts lower and an OBP 14 pts higher and they have scored 43 more runs. Simply looking at the OBP appears to be more important. Like I said though, there are two teams the Cubs have higher OBP and higher SLG numbers this year, and less runs. It's hard to tell from just those individual numbers because of the variances (the fact that other things factor in that can influence run totals) We know a higher OBP increases runs-we know a higher SLG increases runs. I believe OBP is more important, but not by that much.

You only put power into the corner OF because usually power hitters cannot field a position like CF effectively. If Pie can do it, than it is a big bonus to get a power hitter at one of the tougher defensive positions.

Our offense is pretty bad either way, but the lack of big hits has caused a little bit of a drop from what would be expected. Look at 3 teams here that are very similar offensively this year Seattle-OBP-.319, SLG-.414 Tampa Bay-OBP-.314, SLG-.419 Cubs-OBP-.319, SLG-.421 From our OBP and SLG numbers, we should be 3rd to last in the league in runs..but we're not. Seattle has 576 runs scored, TB has 555, and the Cubs have 540. So that sort of thing has played a little bit of a part-and we just have to hope it swings our way next year. The return of Lee will increase both of those numbers somewhat-get a big bat at 2nd and a platoon partner for Jacque and both those numbers should go way up.

I don't think anyone here is going to disagree with that. Approx the same in one category and better in the 2nd category is going to make that team better than the other. (Of course that doesn't work for the 2 teams that we've had a slightly better OBP and slightly better SLG and still have less runs than). Increasing either of them will help your team-the Cubs need OBP more, but only increasing one or the other this offseason won't help the Cubs be anything but average offensively. We need to increase both to have a good offense.

Again, you're giving him too much credit. He's proven he doesn't care about OBP. He's proven it over and over. Why somebody would be willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he actually wants better OBP is beyond me. He doesn't care about OBP. If he has more of it, great. If he has less, so what. Nomar is not know for OBP ability. He's as big a free swinger as there is. The difference is he's really good at it and has a great SLG. He's one of the very few players that actually fit the Hendry/Baker mold, and are successful. The problem is those guys are very rare. No, it really isn't. MLB is about competing against 29 other teams. It's not enough to win games. You have to win more games than everybody else. It's not enough to score some runs. You've got to score more runs than the others. Everything in baseball is about how you stack up against the others. You could make that argument that Neifi Perez is actually a really good baseball player. The problem is he's one of the worst players in MLB. You could pretend Dusty would like a little more OBP, the problem is he doesn't place enough value in it to get more of it than everybody else. Dusty doesn't value OBP, it's clear as day. To think otherwise is to lie to yourself. There's evidence that he actually thinks OBP is bad, hence the clogging, but that's debatable. What is not debatable is that Dusty doesn't see the value of OBP, doesn't see the need for OBP and that the lack of OBP has been killing this team's offense. I agree with most of what is said here-I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, I just see no need to continue to villify him at this point for a quote that when looked at closely is one of his tamer ones over the last few years. You are correct that he does not value OBP enough, and that is one big reason among several others that he should be shown the door at the end of this year.

And he's right that the SLG needs to improve, but the SLG was not a problem in 2004 and 2005 while the Cubs were still poor offensively. He of all people should be able to see that. I don't think he would have had a problem improving the OBP in 2004 and 2005 while the SLG was good (except for having the middle guys of the order walk more, which would probably reduce SLG, which he wouldn't want-but I think he would be just fine to have the other people walk more, and he'd always be fine for increasing OBP by increasing people's AVG). We were average offensively in 2004 (16th) and below average in 2005 (20th) while being 3rd and 6th in SLG respectively. I wasn't saying there it would decrease his percentage-more that it would decrease his slugging numbers, which Dusty wouldn't like (although I would rather take the walks) Undervaluing it is very much different than putting no value on it. Neither is what you want, but one is much better than the other. Also, I'm not making excuses for Dusty-the quote is not the right way to go, it's just not as bad as even usual for him or nearly as bad as its being made out to be. Agreed on that it has been a problem and is still a problem..of course, now SLG is a problem as well-both need to be addressed in the offseason. The problem has been 1 and 1a for most of the season-only a late season slugging increase has made the slugging number only below average while the OBP has been in the bottom 3 teams in the league. I also think that they have actively tried a little bit to improve OBP. Why did they get rid of Patterson and get rid of Pierre? Patterson has about the same speed-he has more power, and probably better defense. The only thing Pierre did better than Patterson was get on base. The same with the Nomar trade-what does Nomar do better than Gonzalez first and foremost? get on base. You can certainly argue that they do not do enough to increase OBP (which would be a correct argument, they need to do more), but they have taken steps to try to acheive a higher OBP. No he isn't. Quit trying to give him credit for stuff he's not doing. He has no interest in improving OBP. The Cubs had great SLG, but were a mediocre to bad offense when they had it, and they did nothing to improve OBP. There is no possible justification for claiming Dusty wants to improve OBP after SLG. He had the SLG before and ignored OBP, he will always ignore OBP because he's an ignorant dinosaur. I'm taking the wanting to improve OBP straight from that quote. He wants to improve SLG more than anything, which could certainly mean that OBP is a problem. He also said a great OBP is great if you have good SLG numbers-which is not right, but it does mean that he would like to have a great OBP after he gets good SLG numbers. Again, Dusty is not correct on the order, but he is not nearly as far off as is being said-all he's saying here is that you need to have a good SLG to make a good OBP worth it, which is again not correct but at least better than many things he's said before.

I think his swing has changed a little bit too-that's why I'm glad they gave him the time off in June, where he was able to stop and figure out what he was doing wrong and correct it. It certainly has paid off for him since.

And he's right that the SLG needs to improve, but the SLG was not a problem in 2004 and 2005 while the Cubs were still poor offensively. He of all people should be able to see that. I don't think he would have had a problem improving the OBP in 2004 and 2005 while the SLG was good (except for having the middle guys of the order walk more, which would probably reduce SLG, which he wouldn't want-but I think he would be just fine to have the other people walk more, and he'd always be fine for increasing OBP by increasing people's AVG). We were average offensively in 2004 (16th) and below average in 2005 (20th) while being 3rd and 6th in SLG respectively. All Dusty is saying is that we need to improve our SLG, get to average offensively, than we can improve our OBP and become a great offensive team.

After reading this again, these are my thoughts. Dusty never said improving the team's OBP was bad in this article-in fact, he's all for it-but he believes it is secondary to increasing the team's slugging percentage. As he said, a good OBP is great, but the team needs to improve their slugging first-implying that they would then need to improve their OBP. You and I may disagree, saying that we need to improve our OBP first and foremost, but all Dusty is doing here is reversing the order of what we need to do. This article could be a lot worse-Dusty could be talking about trying to improve our RISP numbers. Instead, the one bad point he made was that a great OBP is wasted by bad slugging-but improving the slugging first is hardly a terrible thing, although not ideal.

It is certainly possible that Pagan has started to develop some power. Here are his numbers in the minors: 2000: 0 HR in 72 AB's 2001: 0 HR in 295 AB's 2002: 2 HR in 525 AB's 2003: 1 HR in 441 AB's 2004: 4 HR in 494 AB's 2005: 8 HR in 516 AB's 2006: 5 HR in 116 AB's Before the year, I probably would have said that the 8 HR year was just a fluke..now he really appears to be developing some power with the jumps he has had in HR per at bat each of the last 3 years, especially since most if not all of his home runs as a Cub have not been cheap (at least 2-3 to straightaway center). I think he's a guy who would probably hit 15-20 in a full-time role, and might still be developing even more power. Murton is still the better player for now though, as he is farther along with his power than Pagan has shown with his OBP and is a year younger than Pagan (although with his limited AB's, Pagan's OBP numbers have bounced around wildly these last few weeks and might still the next few weeks).

I agree with much that has been said here already. First, the pitching. I believe that the two lefties (Marshall and Hill) have the inside track on possible rotation spots, with Guzman a little behind. I think Marmol could really use some more seasoning-he has a lot of great potential and this is still early in his actual pitching career. I think he should start in the minors next year, and would come up when he has some more command than he showed for much of his time in Wrigley. O'Malley will be sent back to Triple A-the injury probably ruined his one chance he had with the luck of the way he was able to be brought up. Mateo should head back to the minors at the start of next year also-although he has the most ability to change that opinion with a great end to the year, because of the lack of evidence at the major league level for him either way. For the hitters-we should improve at 2B (hopefully Soriano) and start Murton on a regular basis in LF. I don't mind playing Pagan against some of the tougher right handed hitters though-right now Murton is playing about 2 out of every 3 games, and I think he should be playing at least 5 out of every 6 nex t year in LF if we don't sign anybody else to play LF. Pagan-4th OF, 5th if we do what we need to do and sign a platoon partner for Jacque-if we don't, we need to use him as that platoon partner sometimes, even though that would not be his best use or anywhere close to ideal. Cedeno-backup at the SS and 2B positions, traded if we can get any decent value for him-Theriot would then become our backup at both positions, otherwise I can't see him having a place on the team-for the simple fact that the bench will probably be 5 players again, and that should be backup catcher/platoon partner/Pagan/Cedeno-Theriot/?. Both slots cannot be filled by Theriot and Cedeno-we need someone who can back up at the corner infield positions.

I was a little shocked about this myself. Isn't it his job to know most of these things? I think the Cubs farm system is below average-but with the responses today, I don't know how Sickels could possibly know that with the answers he gave today-basically, it appears that he has only taken a cursory glance at best at the Cubs this year. At least that's what I got out of it-I was very disappointed.

And that's not even getting into the whole question of whether Maddux ever threw 167 pitches in a game. Well, I can somewhat answer this part of the question. Yahoo Splits has 41 games where he threw 121 or more-4 more games where he threw 136 or more, and 1 game he threw 151+ pitches in his career. It lists 4 hits and 3 runs, none of the runs earned for Maddux after pitch 151 in that game-so it was likely that he threw 160 pitches or more, making me believe that the 167 number is probably correct-or at least close to it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rusch get O'Malley's next start, and I wouldn't be too upset by that. Give him 1 start before the 31st, and cross your fingers that it is the 1 out of 6 that he is pretty good-and then maybe you could trade him.

Congratulations to Ceda! He certainly looks promising so far.

vs What was the game situation of that Aramis game when he did that? Was it the same as Theriot's?

I'd hardly call a bloop single and a solid hit falling apart-and even if it is, the pitcher has done better 2 of the 3 times Larry has visited the mound (a much higher percentage than normal, that's for sure) And a walk... The walk was before Larry visited the mound..Larry went to the mound to tell Howry how to pitch to the pinch hitter who got the bloop single, so the walk cannot be blamed on him.

I'd hardly call a bloop single and a solid hit falling apart-and even if it is, the pitcher has done better 2 of the 3 times Larry has visited the mound (a much higher percentage than normal, that's for sure)

Murton may not have hit many home runs this season, but he has hit some in some pretty key spots, that's for sure.

Well, whatever Dusty says about that move, he'll get criticized tomorrow. If he says that, people will say he's favoring the people he likes. If he says he made a bad mistake, people will say he shouldn't call out the young players like the Theriot thread today. So, expect Dusty to get criticized tomorrow-I hope of the options though he says that it was a mistake, because that is the truth-and a bad one. Whatever he says, it won't be as direct and won't be as much of a "call out" as it was to Theriot. I look foward to reading the Sun Times tomorrow morning. If Dusty doesn't critizize Bynum the same as Theriot..he is a downright racist. It's a little different situation. Bynum got picked off at first with 1 out. Theriot got caught trying to steal third with 2 outs and the team's best power hitter up. I agree with this-Theriot made a decision to steal (which was a terrible decision) while Bynum made a bad concentration lapse-both are bad, but they are very different scenarios.

As I was just saying on the game thread, what can Dusty say about Bynum's play that won't get criticized tomorrow? If he dismisses it as a regular play of the game, he will get criticized for favortism. If he says it was a mistake, then people will say he is biased against youngsters just like they said today. Basically, there is nothing he can say about a move like this that will be accepted.

Well, whatever Dusty says about that move, he'll get criticized tomorrow. If he says that, people will say he's favoring the people he likes. If he says he made a bad mistake, people will say he shouldn't call out the young players like the Theriot thread today. So, expect Dusty to get criticized tomorrow-I hope of the options though he says that it was a mistake, because that is the truth-and a bad one.

Yep. I had to say it. I actually thought to myself when Guzman threw the 3-0 strike to Howard that if he threw him another good pitch, it was going to be a home run-I almost wanted him to try to throw a breaking ball in that spot. did howard hit that hr on a 3-0 pitch? No, I meant I thought that when I saw him throw the 3-0 strike right down the middle...the 3-1 pitch was the pitch Howard hit the home run.