CubColtPacer

heh heh, Hendry is actually a huge moneyball philosopher! If kc is correct, then by not pursuing overvalued OBP and by instead pursuing undervalued speed, defense, and young pitching, Hendry is being super smart! Whaddya think? Rather than being way behind the game, clever hendry is really way ahead of the game? Beane did say in 2004 in an interview that now that OBP had caught on that he is trying to build his teams around pitching and defense-he then said that he might some day in the future be building teams around teams who like to steal lots of bases, you just never know. So all that is possible-there is just one big flaw. One, we haven't been very good at any of those things this year, we'll see about next year and two-we don't need to always be thinking about efficiency with our payroll, but rather excellence-efficiency should be a big part, but we can take some risks on guys that teams like Oakland cannot.

Plus, I'm not sure what he's talking about as far as Sammy being rated ahead of Ichiro. Sorry about that-those were thier FRAA numbers that season for Ichiro and Sammy. I used that one because FRAA has been used several times to analyze defense here in the past few weeks, and I was trying to be consistent-I should have mentioned what it was though.

Not to be argumentative, but 26 is no spring chicken. You expect a little improvement from 26 to 30, but by the time a player is 26, you usually know what you have. PECOTA projects Izturis will have his best year in 2009, when he is 29 years old: .272/.318/.356. And we can't just ignore his injury history. He had several setbacks before rejoining the Dodgers this year (he was expected back in May), and many baseball people thought the Dodgers should be playing him at 2nd to protect his arm. There's no guarantee that he'll be what he was before the injury, which wasn't worth trading for in the first place. There's just not a whole lot to like about this deal. It's much harder to tell what a player will be like when they have been inujured for half the time they were 25 and 26. His numbers at age 24 were better than his best year at age 29, as you say, and his numbers at age 25 were doing even better until all the injuries which he kept trying to play through. As you say though, we can't ignore his injury history-hence the risk. If he can't come back healthy, then it's a pretty big problem. We don't know if he can though yet, and the last time he was terrible when healthy was at age 23-which is too early to evaluate a ballplayer conclusively.

Or even if it was a month ago....there's just not enough time now either. Yup-I think 85 wins will probably win the wildcard this year, so we'd have to go 38-13 the rest of the way to do that-which is simply not very likely.

We've had better offense than we've had pitching lately-I think they still said that our ERA was over 5 on the homestand on Sunday, but things like Hill pitching instead of Rusch have meant a couple game difference, that's for sure. It's amazing when the offense can do to a ballclub when they have 4 hot players/positions (Ramirez, Barrett, Pierre, Murton/Pagan in LF)

Nobody said we wanted to try to win at the expense of the young players. If we can continue winning like we have been lately though with many of the young players playing, isn't that the best thing? That means the young players will be playing very well, as players like Hill has done for us lately. Besides, it's more likely that skipping the 5th starter will give an extra start to a rookie at the end of the season as it will be to a veteran (when Marshall comes back we will have 3 rookies in the rotation, and so a 60 percent chance that the extra start it frees up will be given to one of Marshall, Marmol, or Hill). The problems with skipping the 5th starter have to do with 2 things-the stress on a player like Zambrano's arm, which I'm not sure about-and giving Mateo regular work instead of sitting him for 2 weeks and than sending him down, and I am one who sincerely hopes he at least puts in a couple appearances if not more in the next week and a half. Basically, I want us to prepare for next year, but if we can continue winning while we do that than that is just a huge bonus for me.

True, but 4 out of the 7 players that were mentionedd mentioned were from their offense, who are a total of 2 runs from being 2nd to last in the major leagues-which would be right next to us. Their pitching has been very good, and that has been the big reason they have won.

The funny thing is, I thought somebody would bring this article up by now, but since they didn't, here it is http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060806&content_id=1596007&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc Some interesting tidbits from Murton "It's the approach, it's trusting your hands, not trying to do too much," Murton said Sunday. "You're thinking, '[Hit it] through the middle of the field,' and then reacting and not being afraid to be aggressive. I think when you do that and keep your front side in and use your hands the way you're supposed to, the inside pitches aren't hard to get to. But when you do try to do too much, you start jamming yourself." And another one: "When I'm hitting my best, I'm not thinking about anything," he said. "I'm seeing it and hitting it. I'm not worried about what he's going to throw me, I'm not worried about what the count is or anything. I'm staying aggressive and hitting off the fastball. What does anybody think about those comments from Murton?

We're 10 games out dude. Gotta keep pushing for that Wild Card. I don't see those mathematics kicking in yet. We're only 10 games out?! Somehow, entering play today, yes. 10 games out of the wildcard-13 1/2 out of the division-shows you how bad the NL has been this season, doesn't it?

just give it up, we are living in a new baseball age, an age where all but a few GM's base their philosophy on more than just anecdotal evidence. i'm not sure why it's so hard to see. there's no use in hiding from it, the truth will set you free. I agree we should use more than anecdotal evidence, but one shouldn't dismiss anecdotal evidence either. I doubt in a situation like this defensively where all the anecdotal evidence points one way, and defensive metrics point the other way that most GM's are going to go with the defensive metrics over the anecdotal evidence. They use the metrics, but that's not the only thing they use. If they did, it would be extremely hard to evaluate any player. Take a player like Orlando Cabrera for example-he went from a 3 one season to a -3 the next season to a 7 in 2005, the very next year. Did he significantly change on defense in those 3 years, and which year was truly indicative of his ability? Anecdotal evidence can tell you that-and by the way, his negative number was the year that the Red Sox traded for him in order to upgrade their defense.

Absolutely. Neifi is a better defender than Izturis. Cesar's 2005 fielding rate: 108 His career fielding rate: 101 http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/izturce01.shtml Neifi's 2005 fielding rate: 115 His career fielding rate: 111 http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/perezne01.shtml By PMR, Neifi is shown to have been much better in 2005: http://anaheimangelsblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pmr-redux-shortstops-update-david.html Just because some Dodgers fans (who probably watch as many Cubs games as I watch Dodgers games) think he's the best fielder in baseball doesn't mean it's true. And Dewan's method of rating middle infielders is pretty flawless, by the way. Well, there's an example of it. Cesar was hurt half of 2005, and both his offense and defense suffered from it. There have been multiple places that said his defense suffered from it, and I think Izturis himself might have said that his defense was worse than usual because of the injuries. The defensive metrics have him as better than his career average though! Also, doesn't the numbers for Neifi concern you just a bit? Why would a player who is getting older and was always known for his defense suddenly have a better than average year? That's what I don't understand-his speed has certainly gone down since he was a younger player-so what has dramatically improved? As I mentioned in another thread, BP had Sosa as a 7 in 2004, while Ichiro had a 1 that year. I simply cannot look at those numbers and say that they are right, that Sosa was a much better right fielder than Ichiro that year defensively. It just doesn't add up for me right now-I think they are getting closer with defensive metrics, but there are still many numbers like that one right there that just make you wonder about how reliable it actually is.

John Dewan, author of The Fielding Bible, ranks Izturis #8 on his top ten shortstops list. Neifi's #6. Every other defensive metric I've seen indicates Neifi is a better shortstop. No offense intended, but I trust them more than your eyes. It's not only my eyes-it's the eyes of everyone who has seem him play. It's not just a few people who are saying he's a wonderful defender-I've never seen a Dodger fan say he's not, and there are plenty of informed outsiders who have said through observation that he's a wonderful defender, and maybe the best in the league at the position. Are you saying that all of them are wrong? I'm not inclined to believe necessarily what one person says, or two-but when just about everyone who has ever been around him says it, I'm more inclined to listen to it. When the opinions are somewhat split, I'm more likely to turn to defensive metrics to help settle the debate-but there are too many discrepancies in defensive metrics for me to make that alone overrule the virtually unanimous other evidences of Izturis's defense.

And if we played well outside the divison and not inside, then it would be said that it was Dusty's fault that the team fell flat in the "big games". I'm not absolving Dusty of blame, but the big reason that these splits exist is that the team did not have many division opponents scheduled when Lee went down, and their few weeks playing the NL West coincided with the time when they were playing their worst baseball. They would have lost to anybody during that time-it just happened to be a heavy non-division schedule at that time.

But it would still be a bad trade. Neifi Perez, who is already signed through 2007, is a better defensive shortstop than Izturis. His career fielding rate is 111, better than Izturis's best season. If Ronny's defense at SS weren't acceptable, Neifi could be inserted at SS. Izturis is redundant, and it's offensive that Trib sportswriters are trying to sell him like he's the second coming of Ozzie Smith.[/b] I can understand how you can think this is a terrible trade if you think Neifi is a better defensive shortstop right now. From watching the two, I can't believe it myself-Izturis's range is so much greater than Neifi's at this point. Also, Izturis hits better than Neifi this year, when Izturis is coming back from his injury. The likelihood is that Izturis will improve at least slightly from his numbers this year, and that Neifi will continue to decline-which will make Izturis a much better shortstop next year than Neifi.

BP doesn't have a stance on Izturis. Christina Karhl does. She writes for BP. Gee, thanks for the clarification. So what makes the author of the article an authority on who should and should not be an everyday SS? Her unqualified stance makes her opinion look myopic. BP still put her article on their website so it reflects poorly on them, too. The points I made still stand. Whether it is BP or Christina Karhl doesn't matter. Defense at the SS position still went unquantified and Karhl's claim that Izturis "shouldn't be an everyday player" is inaccurate which you agree with in your quoted statement below. Then why bother making the claim that Izturis is not an everyday SS? Also, how do you or Ms. Karhl know exactly what the line-up of the Chicago Cubs will be while Cesar Izturis is on the team? Your response doesn't make any sense. If what this uproarious 80-page thread is all about is that neither Izturis nor Cedeno are great offensive middle infielders, I readily agree. They, by themselves, will not score a lot of runs. I was simply pointing out that there are many different writers at BP, and they don't always agree. And you ought to read the entire thread. Izturis may have value, but he won't contribute much to the Cubs. Believe it or not, the Cubs already have one of the better defenses in baseball. They're currently ranked #6 in defensive efficiency, and they've been as high as #4 in the recent past. They don't need more players who can catch the ball. They need more players who can get on base and drive in runs. Izturis fixes a problem that doesn't exist. For somebody that values defense as Henry does, this does allow him the flexibility to go out and sign somebody like Soriano to play 2b. Izturis and Lee will make up the defensive shortcomings of a player like Soriano, and Soriano would help the offense tremendously-this move by itself cannot be judged very well because it is really hard to tell what the rest of the team will be like. If by this they determine the defense is fine and are free to sign some great offensive players, then it is a very good move. I don't know if they are thinking this, but it is reasonable that something like this could be their plan.

Wow..I didn't even see that statement about how Izturis shouldn't be an everyday player. That really is quite a statement-especially considering 8 of the 27 qualified shortstops this year have under a .700 OPS, and 6 of those shortstops have under a .300 OBP-and that doesn't count Izturis. Is 1/3 of the league just missing all these extra shortstops out there? I doubt it-it's just that good hitting shortstops are scarce-almost as scarce as a good hitting catcher.

And that's something else. We're talking about 6 games here. Izturis hasn't hit well, but has looked good at the plate in most of his at bats (2 or 3 times he's hit hard low line drives right at people already). He has done his job in the field, but hasn't looked particularly good doing it yet. Both of these seem to contrast with the reports on him, and so we just need to wait and see what continues and what doesn't. I'm happy with his work at the plate the last two days (even if the stats don't show it for Saturday, he still helped the team twice)-and we'll see about his defense at Wrigely-we just don't know enough to be sure of anything yet.

Well, he'd probably also never consider a platoon for Jones, in which case we'd enjoy more of that .198/.214/.344 line he has against lefties this season or .201/.247/.370 of last season. We have to see that he doesn't hit lefties with our own eyes before we can believe it. Maybe we'll see JJones sit vs lefties more for the remainder of the season. Which would be nice. I doubt he will still sit against all lefties, but I think he will a lot more now. We will have situations like the other day with Murton in left and Pagan in right, which gives the added benefit of getting them both in the lineup and at-bats to add to their evaluations.

It looks like the Cubs did not claim him. Will Carroll, in today's Under the Knife column, mentions that he was told the Astros had the prevailing claim. Well, then it looks like it wouldn't have mattered. The Astros were pretty desperate to make a deal before the deadline to improve their offense-if they didn't make the trade for him, the Braves must have been asking for entirely too steep of a price.

And the Reds and all the other teams ahead of the Cubs have to seriously implode. Technically, if everyone else stayed playing at the same baseball they have for the season and the Cubs won at the same rate they did on the homestand, they would win the wildcard. Of course, just because something is possible doesn't mean it is going to happen-and winning almost 80 percent of your games over 50 games is incredibly hard for any team, and almost impossible for this team.

Jon, one question about the graphs-why do all the lines go down while Pagan is hurt? In the couple months that he was hurt, the line is sloping down-why would the graph do that? It seems like it would be simple enough for the graph to draw the straight line, but it doesn't. I just thought that was very interesting.

Doesn't sound that terrible of a day? I guess you had to see it... It wasn't that terrible of a day. That foul ball was one of those tough plays near the mound and stands-it was a play Izturis should have made only because he is so good defensively-but as Len and Bob mentioned, he is still learning how unique the foul territory is in Wrigely, so that's not that big of a deal. The bobble was more concerning to me, but he did recover to make the out, so it wasn't that big of a deal either. At most, you can call it a terrible day for Izturis-he won't make even those defensive lapses all that often. BTW, a bright spot of the day also was that Cedeno finally looked comfortable playing 2nd base-he really looked better out there.

What's so wrong about what he said there? I can't find really anything wrong with either statement-what do you think is so wrong? He didn't claim that how he used Murton was the only reason Murton is doing better, and a case can be made that it certainly has helped him a little bit-and all Pagan has done since he came back has been to hit and hit some more, so I don't see any problem with giving him some of the playing time there.

They still do...Haren/Zito/Street/Swisher/Bradley/Kotsay/Crosby, they may not be as "sexy" of names as the previous regime, but that talent level is still unbelievable. Um..that's like saying the Cubs talent level is unbelievable because they have Z/Ramirez/Dempster/Lee/Jones/Pierre/Murton. For example, Kotsay is 2 years older than Pierre and is putting up just about identical numbers to him this year (they are within a point or two of each other). He's been a little better, but not really that much better than Pierre at the plate since 2002. Bradley has been better than Jones, but he never plays anywhere he is...he's had 1 year in his whole career with more than 400 at bats, and that year he put up a .786 OPS-which is just about Jones's career average. Murton has been just as good as Crosby and is 2 years younger..Crosby has a .318 career OBP with a .724 career OPS over 2 1/2 years, and Murton has a .369 and .820 career over just about 1 year now. Swisher is not quite to the same level Lee was when he was 26, and Swisher is having the best year of his career so far-also, even if he does get to the level that Lee was at 26, he'd still have to break out again to get to the level Lee is at now. Z matches up well with Zito-I don't think I have to prove that. So then we just have Street/Haren vs. Ramirez/Dempster, but they are hard enough to compare that I'll leave them alone for now-suffice it to say it's not an obvious choice which pair you would rather have on your team. Also, this was done for the Cubs without including Barrett or Prior or any of the young pitchers. The talent level of Oakland is just not that unbelievable.

I readily and freely admit that I did. Granted, this is only 2 games, and one of them was against the stankin' Pirates, but he has looked fantastic in both of those starts. Like I said when he was called up this time, I hope he makes me eat a buffet's-worth of crow. It's only good for the Cubs if they have a slew of young pitching/trading options going into next year. The stankin' Pirates are 4th in the NL against lefties in OPS and runs scored. True-but 2 of their main players against lefties Casey and Wilson are now both gone. This season against LHP: Casey: .311/.350/.500 Wilson: .313/.376/.535 Also Freddy Sanchez did not play today: his numbers against LHP this year Sanchez: .466/.484/.636 So Hill made a great start, but that Pirates stat is slightly misleading-because they didn't have 3 of the 4 hitters who were a major part of making that stat true. Whoever it was against though, Hill still dominated them.