CubColtPacer

What was this arbitrary adjustment based on? It's based on adding a base to slugging every time Pierre steals a base and taking away a hit from his OBP every time he gets caught. We've already discussed how that doesn't work because of the fact that a traditional double drives in runs. You adjusted by an arbitrary 10 slugging points to make up for this. I don't see how you got that from anywhere besides just making it up. This also doesn't take into account that OBP is more important to offensive production than SLG. OBP is more important-but important enough to take the 20 points in OBP rather than the 70-80 in slugging? Yes, my number is a bit arbitrary, but think about it. The only situation where a double and a single and a sb are different is one of the following situations: 1. Runner on 2nd-Pierre singles, and the runner stays at 3rd, and Pierre steals 2nd. 2. Runner on 1st-Pierre Singles, Runner goes to 3rd, Pierre steals 2nd. 3. Runner on 1st-Pierre singles, Runner goes to 2nd, double steal. That's it-that's the only 3 situations where it is different. How many times do you think any of those situations have actually happened this season? I have seen very few of these occasions, so the formula still gives a rough indication of his actual production. Edit: By the way, I meant that taking the 10 points off was the part where I estimated the number of times those situations have actually happened to make it different. I calculated the original number of actually adding 80 points to his slugging. Second Edit: I can confirm now that 29 of Pierre's sb's are with only him on. So at least for those 29 sb's, it was the same as a double-and I know at least 3 or 4 more are double steals where Pierre stole 3rd and a player stole 2nd behind him-so there are only a handful of steals at most where a double would have been different than a single+sb.

What was this arbitrary adjustment based on? It's based on adding a base to slugging every time Pierre steals a base and taking away a hit from his OBP every time he gets caught.

Defense. Wins. Ballgames. Just for clarity, that ball was hit off Zambrano's leg and deflected to Izturis at SS. No chance to make a play. Thanks Bruno..it's hard watching Gamecast and knowing exactly what happens..can somebody describe to me the 2 Cedeno plays? I think one was in the second and 1 was in the 3rd-what has happened?

I guess Cedeno is comfortable now-these are the people that should be the regular lineup the rest of the way this season.

this doesn't really work because the adjusted doubles don't have nearly the same value as the actual doubles. doubles are generally gap-hits, which are run producers with men on base. Like I said though, it does work for Pierre to a large degree. Pierre doesn't come up all that often with runners on, and he certainly doesn't steal very many bases after getting a single with runners on-either the runner in front of him is the pitcher, who had to stop at 2nd, which doesn't allow Pierre to steal-or the runner is at 2nd already, comes home with Pierre's single-which makes the single just as good as a double. The only situation where they would be different is if you had a runner at 1st base capable of taking 3rd on a single, which doesn't happen that often when Pierre is up. So let's say you can take 10 points off the slugging increase for those circumstances-you're still looking at a 20 point drop in OBP for a 70 point increase in slugging.

What other year were we last in the league? Last year we were much closer to the middle then to last. They were last in walks, but 11th in OBP (out of 16 NL teams) thanks to ranking 3rd in AVG (2nd in SLG). They were .005 away from last place, but .009 away from the midpoint. So, while they were closer to the middle in terms of rank, they were actually closer to last in terms of the actual number. Combined over the past two years they probably will have the worst total OBP. The lack of walks is, by far, the single greatest contributor to the poor offensive performance during the Dusty Baker era. They've had good batting averages and bad averages. They've hit well with RISP and poorly with RISP. They've hit for lots of power and no power. But they've consistently been at or near the bottom of the barrell in the NL in the walks department (14th, 14th, 16th, 16th). It's a huge problem, they refuse to admit it and fix it, and far too many fans and experts accept that as perfectly OK since the walk just isn't the manly thing to do. They were 3.6 percent worse than 15th place in majors last year (729-703). They scored 10 percent more runs than the last place team (703-639). How again were they closer to last than the middle?

In what way shape or form? Well, Pierre is considered to be a marginally bigger threat on the bases than Posednik. Also, as much as we have been upset at Pierre for how he plays center, Posednik is that much worse. When their offensive games are so similar, the tiebreaker should either be amount of contract (which I don't know what either of them will ask for) or their other attributes, which Pierre is better at. It would still be a very close call between the two players, but the fact that a natural center fielder by both speed and the limited offense that Podsednik brings was moved to left is a telling sign I think. Considered to be marginally bigger threat on the bases? By whom? Pods is more successful stealing. And he makes considerably less money. You can't just claim Pierre is "better in every category" and expect not to be called on that completely made up and arbitrary statement. I'm fine with being called out-especially since Pierre has been more successful at stealing bases each of the last 2 seasons. 2005-Podsednik-59 steals, 23 times caught Pierre- 57 steals, 17 times caught 2006-Podsednik-30 steals, 13 times caught Pierre- 38 steals, 12 times caught Podsednik's percentage is going down and is getting caught much more frequently than earlier in his career, while Pierre is staying level to his career. So yes, Pierre is now considered to be marginally better on the basepaths. Great post and I didn't realize that at all. perfect example of why small-ball doesn't work--even with fast players. giving up outs by needlessly trying to steal is stupid. there are only a few guys in the league whom i'd give the perpetual green light to, and neither of these guys is one of them. the stealing is not what i like about podsednik, it's his plate discipline--which is much more important than speed or steals or bunting the runner over. If we added each SB to both of these players SLG, and took away each CS from their OBP, both of these players would increase their OPS by a pretty decent margin. Now, I know this is a very rough way to do it-but essentially, this is how it would work-especially for a player like Pierre, who is getting on and stealing bases when there is nobody on before him-so getting a single and stealing second is the same as a double for him. If you get a 20 or so point drop in OBP, isn't that offset by the 80 point increase in slugging?

I agree to take more walks, but this comparison is interesting. We walked 166 less times in 2005-and scored a total of 3 less runs than 2002, and actually finished higher in the league-20th in runs in 2005, 22nd in 2002. While this is a good thing to point out, this was a pretty bad way to point it out. Also Bellhorn may not have been the greatest comparison either-he's only had 2 seasons with a 700+ OPS in his career, and only 3 years with an above average OBP or better (he didn't crack .700 the 3rd season because his slugging was under .300 for the season). Again, what he is trying to point out is fine-he just used examples that don't work very well.

What other year were we last in the league? Last year we were much closer to the middle then to last.

How did they downgrade their offense by switching from Cedeno to Izturis at short? That one move alone does not downgrade their offense-it actually upgrades it. Izturis essentially replaced Walker in the lineup. The offense got worse while the defense got "better." I put "better" in quotes because Izturis isn't that much better than Cedeno or Perez, if at all. True-but we're looking to 2007. If the Cubs want Walker, they have the same option as they did before-to re-sign him. If not, it is Izturis replacing Cedeno, and whichever player-Cedeno or a free agent-replacing Walker. Sure, the offense got worse for these last 2 months of the season-but we don't really care if the offense gets worse now. Instead, the thought was that we would have Cedeno at short and a free agent at second, now hopefully we will have Izturis at short and a free agent at second. We will have to see.

You mean someone like Andruw Jones? :wink: Andruw is just as much of an impact player as Soriano ever was. Andruw's career OPS+ is 116 to Soriano's 111, and Andruw's puts up his numbers more consistently (last 3 years were 121, 113, 133 vs Soriano's 128, 98, 110). Andruw gets on base a whole lot more, and SLG is about a wash. I never fully supported the idea of getting Soriano, but this team needs a lot of offense. I wouldn't mind seeing both of them added for next season. Considering all players in a deal must clear waivers, getting him now makes more sense because the cost would probably be a lot lower than in the offseason. The Cubs wouldn't be able to move any top prospects like Pie, Marshall, etc. right now -- somebody like Pittsburgh would surely make claims on them. Well, that is certainly a great option. I wasn't trying to say that I perfer Soriano over Jones if they both came with the same cost, but if I could only have one, I'd take Soriano only because I could keep the prospects. If we have enough payroll to get both, then that would be wonderful-Jones is a great ballplayer. I just wasn't sure that their two huge salaries could both be combined on the team.

I'd hope they're already trying, but it's the Cubs, so you never know. They very well may be. It's not public information who teams put on waivers, so for all we know Glendon could be one of them. Most teams routinely put several players on waivers after the deadline, since they can always revoke the waivers if a player is claimed by another team. It is true..I can't remember from what source it was, but I read something the other day where Rusch was listed as one of the names who still would have a decent chance of moving during August-in fact, he was the only Cub listed.

He's signed through 2007 at $13.5m. We could extend him if we felt it appropriate of course. I'd rather spend $2.5m more (at most) and lock up Soriano in the off-season. Why? Besides this season, I don't think Soriano's stats has been better than Jones' besides this season. I would probably have to agree with the Soriano talk, with the only big reason is that their stats have not been far enough apart to spend the prospects on Jones-if we sign Soriano, we could spin those players off for another impact bat. That doesn't mean that I oppose getting Jones altogther though-he's still a very good ballplayer that would be worth it. Or we could use the prospects for Jones and try to sign Carlos Lee or somebody like that. That is certainly another option-Jones and Lee would improve the offense significantly. Of course, if we have the money, Jones and Soriano would also improve the offense-so, yes I definitely would say that if we could get Jones in the right deal to go out and get him.

He's signed through 2007 at $13.5m. We could extend him if we felt it appropriate of course. I'd rather spend $2.5m more (at most) and lock up Soriano in the off-season. Why? Besides this season, I don't think Soriano's stats has been better than Jones' besides this season. I would probably have to agree with the Soriano talk, with the only big reason is that their stats have not been far enough apart to spend the prospects on Jones-if we sign Soriano, we could spin those players off for another impact bat. That doesn't mean that I oppose getting Jones altogther though-he's still a very good ballplayer that would be worth it.

I think there is one other thing to consider when thinking about how big of a role defense should play-and that is that our pitching will be young. If we go with a rotation of 2 or 3 young pitchers, hits tend to multiply on young pitching especially. They sail through a couple innings, but can have trouble especially when runners get on base (this is based purely on observation over the years). Errors can also cause young pitchers to get flustered, and cause more hits and runs. Veteran pitchers can more easily shake off errors behind them in the field, but rookies need that confidence that they don't have to throw the ball past the hitters in order to win-that if they let them hit the ball into play, outs are going to be recorded. I can't tell you how much more valuable, but defense definitely becomes more valuable with a young pitcher on the mound.

I don't know, but that's what trades are for. It shouldn't be hard to find a lead-off guy with a .330 OBP who is cheaper than Pierre. If Pierre had more of a recent history of a .350+ OBP, I'd be on board with re-signing him. Leadoff hitters are hard to find. You cant just go out and make a trade for one. Not many teams will deal their leadoff hitter. Matt Murton would be just fine as a leadoff hitter if Pierre didn't come back. Yes, he actually would. I would just then have 2 questions: 1) How does Matt feel about batting leadoff? That's something that we can't really know-some hitters are just not cut out for batting leadoff. From our vantage point, it would be hard to tell if Murton is one of them or if he is comfortable in that role. 2)Who do we sign to play center? I'm not sure what options there are that could be had, or how much it would take.

Pagan's been a pleasant surprise this year-albeit in a small number of at-bats.

Whatever else Theriot does, he really has great game awareness-both the tag up earlier in the 1st and that double play have really showed that.

I can ask for a leadoff hitter who can at least work the count beyond seeing 2-3 pitches and have an on-base percentage of at least .350. How is Pierre supposed to work the count? It's not like he's heading up there swinging. In fact, he finished 8th in the league last year in taking the 1st pitch-he only swung 11.4 percent of the time. The only reason that he doesn't see all that many pitches is that he doesn't swing and miss very often and doesn't foul that many pitches off-which means that he's likely to put his first swing in play.

It's only caused 3 out of the 4 runs today..all 4 if you think Gonzalez should have been able to throw Pagan out. Really though, I think Cedeno was just nervous on that play-he probably is feeling a little out of sorts the last couple days trying to learn a new position-even going back to your old position can still have you a little jumpy-great barehand Mateo!

Mateo hasn't tried to nibble-he is really going right after them, and it is really working right now. I'm really interested to see if this continues if he gets into a bit of trouble later in the game-those 2 innings have been pretty impressive so far though.

Welcome back Aardsma, and nice inning there.

Down 7-1 after 5..Marmol gave up 5 in the first.

Does anybody else question the theory that he was tipping his pitches? They said Arizona was laying off borderline pitches-I didn't really see any borderline pitches the first 2 innings. It looked instead that he was throwing most of his pitches a foot off the plate, and his strikes were easy ones right over the middle with Arizona sitting dead red.

Lol..at least the 2nd one was right down the middle there. 79 pitches for Marmol, and 73 pitches for Cruz now. Amazing.