CubColtPacer

I think the Rolen at bat was huge then, and in fact during the at bat I was thinking that this is the difference between the two leagues. When Hill gets ahead of Triple A hitters, he can throw the curve, and they strike out. Rolen fouled off some nice pitches from Hill (a couple bad pitches too)-and Hill couldn't keep throwing strikes and walked him. The good thing is, something like this might get better as Hill learns what pitches can get major leaguers out without having to strike everyone out.

What the hell was that? Either he got the worst jump ever or he gave up on that way too soon. Get out of the inning, Rich. Coupled with the fact that Murton completely misjudged Luna's ball. That was bad too, but I don't think it cost the Cubs anything since Edmonds would have scored no matter how Murton fielded the ball. True, but neither did Pierre's..even if he had run full tilt he would still have been 8-10 feet short of that ball.

The scary thing is, I was looking at this lineup and realize that this is what we are reduced to. This lineup is actually our best chance to win tonight, and that's scary. I don't want Neifi playing a bunch over the last two months (because we don't need to win this season-I want to see Theriot and Cedeno in the middle infield) but Cedeno does need to sit down for a couple days and clear his head. Let's just hope that it's only a couple of days and then he can get back in the lineup consistently.

The question is-what is our goal for him the rest of the year? Let's say they get smart and pitch him every 5 days the rest of the season. What numbers does he need to get to in order for us to want to count on him as a starter or reliever next season? The thing I'm worried about is that he pitches, has around a 5 ERA the rest of the season, and then we have the same trouble next season. So for the rest of the season-I hope first that he can either perform really well, and then if he can't do that, at least do us the favor of completely flaming out. I just want it to be clear one way or the other, and then it is a big bonus if he gets it at the major league level.

Isn't that how we ended up with Jones, waiting until it was too late? If Abreu's available now, he won't be in October. Any team currently in the race that can afford him will keep him for next year. Next year isn't the issue - it's the option for the for the following year that has all teams balking. If you're trading for Abreu, you are commiting to 2.5 years at ~$35 million. Maybe I'm missing something, but it's a club option with a $2M buyout. That shouldn't be an issue to the teams that can afford a $15M salary in the first place. The issue is that Abreu has been saying that he will force teams who they might possibly trade him to either make his option year guaranteed, or to give him a new deal.

unfortunately, i agree. his offense might actually be tolerable as a cf. You mean tolerable like his career OPS would rank as average for RF's this year? There are plenty of RF's in this league that check in at under .785 this year. Jones's offense in center would go from tolerable to very good, I just don't know about his defense there.

I sincerely doubt that. We were playing good baseball in April before Lee went down, and we didn't have Prior and Wood then. I think if everybody had been healthy, we'd been in the race. If the more likely option of just Prior and Wood on the DL, then we'd be around .500 right now. there is no way one guy makes up 22 games in the win column, which is essentially what you're saying would happen if just wood and prior were on the DL. Actually, you're right on that. I didn't realize how much of the problems this year have come from our pitching from looking at the stats. For example, I didn't realize that if Jerome Williams and Glendon Rusch of 2005 were on this squad, they would be our #2 and #3 starters-scary thought huh? So, we'd need at least one of Prior or Wood to make up some of the difference beause the pitching has been terrible as well outside of Z.

Pierre was worse than Patterson of last year most of this season. And Jones is barely better than Burnitz, barely. Woulda coulda shoulda. This team sucks, it was constructed poorly and it's managed poorly. Patterson last year: .215/.254/.348 Pierre this year by month: April: .258/.289/.333 May: .226/.267.290 June: .283/.352/.381 July: .362/.395/.495 Seems to me the only month you can really say that Pierre was worse then Patterson was May, and he has been unbelievably better for almost half of the season now. Jones and Burnitz Burnitz last year: .258/.322/.435 Jones: .286/.313/.497 I will give you that Jones is only a little better then Burnitz-even though his OPS is over 50 points higher. Pierre though has definitely been better then Patterson. The bullpen is significantly better than last year. I'm not arguing this team is poorly constructed-but when completely healthy, this team is better than last years team.

I sincerely doubt that. We were playing good baseball in April before Lee went down, and we didn't have Prior and Wood then. I think if everybody had been healthy, we'd been in the race. If the more likely option of just Prior and Wood on the DL, then we'd be around .500 right now. Look what happened to last year's team with a fully healthy Lee having a career year and Prior healthy for most of the season. The Sun Times has an excellent point. Injuries can make it difficult to be a 90+ win team (even though teams do it every year), but they are not an excuse to be a 20 games under .500 team. Yup-last year is actually what I am partly basing it on. The other players are better then last year-Pierre being so much better then Patterson of last year, Jones being an upgrade over Burnitz, and so on. We finished 4 under last year..if we had Prior this year, I think we would be 4 or 5 over right now, if both, 8-10 over.

There were four batters that reached base. Two of them were on "seeing eye" singles that went "just past" Ronny and Neifi. He was pulled after a 5 pitch walk to Reyes that brought up LoDuca. Since Reyes was meaningless at first (tieing run on third, winning run on second in the Bottom of the 9th), I didn't understand why Reyes wasn't intentionally walked anyway, but that was just me. And you missed games in Shea? Whats your excuse :) Well, there was a big problem with that-we were up 8-6 at the time, so walking Reyes would have put the winning run on base. Yup, the inning started with a single, then an out, then another single. Then Dempster walked the next batter to have the bases loaded. The next batter grounded out on a play that was just barely made to make it 2nd and 3rd, 2 outs, 8-6. Then he walked Reyes and Dusty pulled him after the 2nd walk.

I sincerely doubt that. We were playing good baseball in April before Lee went down, and we didn't have Prior and Wood then. I think if everybody had been healthy, we'd been in the race. If the more likely option of just Prior and Wood on the DL, then we'd be around .500 right now.

The funny thing is that Prior actually had a pretty good season last year-166 innings, 11-7, 3.67 ERA, 1.21 WHIP. Not Prior 2003 numbers, but still a solid #2 numbers for Prior last year. This year? Well, uh-not so much so far-I think his ERA should have come down at least a half a point today though.

The good thing about the problems last inning is now at least Wagner and Floyd are out of the game.

Solid? Solid? If he lowered his walk total, he'd have one of the best pitching performances in baseball history. Yes, the walks are not great-but he still no-hit them-if that's solid, then no pitcher is ever going to really reach great. Alright take it easy. Five walks in 5 2/3 innings does not constitute a great day. He pitched very well today in comparison to other days, but he was behind a lot today. Maybe it's solid in comparison to how Prior pitched in 2003. For 2006, it was very good. Sorry-but the point is, Prior shut them out with a WHIP of under 1 for almost 6 innings-that's very good. If he had pitched this far and given up 2 runs on 8 hits and walks combined, that would be my definition of solid. Maybe our definitions are different though-I'm just saying that if you keep that definition, then our pitchers will only have a couple good starts all year long.

Solid? Solid? If he lowered his walk total, he'd have one of the best pitching performances in baseball history. Yes, the walks are not great-but he still no-hit them-if that's solid, then no pitcher is ever going to really reach great.

Just a side note: The A's are last in the AL in OBP. Kinda interesting. Actually, Beane's researchers have discovered that OBP is actually overvalued in the market today and that speed and young pithing is undervalued. That's interesting. Do you have a link with more information, cause that's such a step away from the typical philosophy. I'm going to apologize in advance, because I am having a very hard time posting links on here, and also this is not completely what you want. This is an interview with Beane in 2004 where if you look part of the way down you will see this paragraph or so: "Right now, you take on-base percentage and it's en vogue. It wasn't 10 years ago. We could get guys like Matt Stairs and Geronimo Berroa. Blez: And guys like Scott Hatteberg. BB: Exactly, guys like Scottie Hatteberg. Now people are recognizing the value of that and they're paying for it. And if we're in a bidding war, we're going to lose that. So we have evolved. If you look at some of our first playoff teams, the `99 team that won 87 games, it was a power, on-base team. Now we're tops in the league in defense and pitching. For us, it's all about filling in on the backend and figuring out what people are undervaluing. You know, one day we're going to have a team with guys who steal 50 bases because people aren't paying for it. But it's all about wins. That's all that matters." Here is the address to that. http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2004/9/20/23544/2604

Except that he says slow runners clog the bases..and Reyes is anything but slow.

I like this move. Dempster this season has tended to either get out of it quickly or not get out of it at all-so it's a good to get him out, and hope the next person can shut it down.

Does anybody think that Cedeno reminds you of Furcal defensively? A tough time making throws sometimes, makes a lot of errors, but also makes several plays that just amaze you.

I think he looks very much like a Hendry guy, but his differences help. He gets most of his OBP from his average-he is not allergic to walks, but he doesn't appear to be a high walk guy either. He may not hit for a great amount of home runs, but he makes up for that with his doubles. I don't think he is exactly a Hendry type of guy, but I don't think he is really an anti-Hendry player either, at least with the statistics I'm looking at.

That's an interesting stat-do you think it's because we have players like Jones, where the deeper he gets into the count the more his stats go down? Or is it more likely that the bad pitchers throw them a good pitch early in the count that the Cubs jump on, while they have to wait for a decent pitch from the better pitchers?

You can certainly make that claim, but that doesn't certainly make it true. OBP and SLG are simply far more important than speed and defense. And defense is most likely more important than speed. That is not to say I'd prefer guys who are slow and can't field. Certainly you'd love a .300/.450/.600 hitter who can steal 40 bases (at an 80%+ rate) and field with the best of them. The problem is those guys are very hard to find. What you need first and foremost is OBP, followed closely by SLG. The guy needs to be competent with the glove, but he doesn't have to be great. And it would be nice if he was fast, but not particularly important. Are you saying that the difference between good and bad defense is less than a hit a week, especially in the outfield and middle infield, or is that hit given up just not worth as much as getting a hit at the plate?

I value stats as much as the next guy, and I also typically watch hundreds of games every year at all levels. I do not put a lot of stock in defensive metrics. Watching players and their reads, lines, quickness, etc all give a better idea of their value on defense. Outfield assists do not tell me how strong or accurate a player's arm is. Stolen bases do not always give an accurate representation of a players speed. Stats typically cannot show where corrections can be made to improve aspects of a players game. There are plenty more, I'm sure. There are a lot of things stats cannot measure and/or predict. Aside from some listed by Pedro, there's the big one, playoff series. Playing the odds gets you into the postseason. But once in, anybody can get hot, or lucky. Stats don't determine who will win before the season begins. But a smart GM can look at stats and use them to create the best odds for his team to get to the postseason. This is where Hendry has failed. He's terribly inefficient, and puts the team behind the eight ball repeatedly. It's not that it would be impossible for the Cubs to win with Hendry's style, or with Baker for that matter. It's just very difficult. I definitely agree with both of your comments here. This team does need to do a better job of raising both the teams OBP and SLG. I just question comments like the one above where it is said that if I can get a high OBP, that's sufficient no matter how little speed, defense, and so many other things that cannot be measured. It's a balancing act between those two extremes that can make a team really good. The problem I have with this team is that we have almost none of those components. Out of the 4 components: OBP, SLG, speed, and defense-speed is the only one we have a decent amount of. The problem is, speed is the one element that by itself doesn't work very well. It can be extremely valuable when paired with a high OBP for example, but you can't steal first base. I'm all for increasing OBP and SLG-I just don't know about swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side. It would be better then this side of the pendulum-that's for sure, but I just wonder if somewhere in the middle might be better for a team. To explain, I just wonder if a team with good OBP, good SLG, good speed, and good defense might be better then a team with great of the first two and terrible speed and defense. I think at that point it might come down to how much that pitching staff needed the defense behind them I guess. OBP and SLG should never be mentioned in the same tier as speed and defense. defense is more important than speed, but speed is just a peripheral talent that is beneficial to possess if you have the other skills. The question is-why is that the case though? Like you said earlier on this page, the difference in 50 points of average is only one hit a week-and of course that would be about 50 points of OBP as well. A guy with great speed compared to a guy with terrible speed can certainly make a difference of one hit a week. A guy with terrible defense can certainly give up an extra hit per week-maybe not an error, but just the inability to get to balls that other people would be able to get to. Isn't not giving up a hit worth just as much as getting one?

I value stats as much as the next guy, and I also typically watch hundreds of games every year at all levels. I do not put a lot of stock in defensive metrics. Watching players and their reads, lines, quickness, etc all give a better idea of their value on defense. Outfield assists do not tell me how strong or accurate a player's arm is. Stolen bases do not always give an accurate representation of a players speed. Stats typically cannot show where corrections can be made to improve aspects of a players game. There are plenty more, I'm sure. There are a lot of things stats cannot measure and/or predict. Aside from some listed by Pedro, there's the big one, playoff series. Playing the odds gets you into the postseason. But once in, anybody can get hot, or lucky. Stats don't determine who will win before the season begins. But a smart GM can look at stats and use them to create the best odds for his team to get to the postseason. This is where Hendry has failed. He's terribly inefficient, and puts the team behind the eight ball repeatedly. It's not that it would be impossible for the Cubs to win with Hendry's style, or with Baker for that matter. It's just very difficult. I definitely agree with both of your comments here. This team does need to do a better job of raising both the teams OBP and SLG. I just question comments like the one above where it is said that if I can get a high OBP, that's sufficient no matter how little speed, defense, and so many other things that cannot be measured. It's a balancing act between those two extremes that can make a team really good. The problem I have with this team is that we have almost none of those components. Out of the 4 components: OBP, SLG, speed, and defense-speed is the only one we have a decent amount of. The problem is, speed is the one element that by itself doesn't work very well. It can be extremely valuable when paired with a high OBP for example, but you can't steal first base. I'm all for increasing OBP and SLG-I just don't know about swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side. It would be better then this side of the pendulum-that's for sure, but I just wonder if somewhere in the middle might be better for a team. To explain, I just wonder if a team with good OBP, good SLG, good speed, and good defense might be better then a team with great of the first two and terrible speed and defense. I think at that point it might come down to how much that pitching staff needed the defense behind them I guess.

You just made some people very unhappy--angry, even. It's gonna get ugly, but stay strong. You have supporters. plenty of "stat geeks" (whatever that means) watch a ton of baseball-- probably much more than you do. i'll bring up the old "Bull Durham" logic-- the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter is 1 hit per week. a person is either crazy or lying if they say that simply watching games is the answer to finding the difference between the 2. this is just the tip of the iceberg, and it's really an illustration of a larger point. the game of baseball is largely hidden in stats, as the sample size of baseball is perfect for stat analysis. instead of relying on gut instinct, or watching one player have a good week and then deciding that he's a good player based on that, "stat geeks" (whatever that means) tend to look for real production numbers over an extended period of time. I'll jump into this and ask a question. I certainly think that baseball more than any other sport can be accurately predicted by statistics. I think however that stats certainly only tell part of the story. My question is-do people who value stats a great deal, is there anything in baseball that cannot be measured well by stats that is still important? Or are all of these things that stats cannot measure just small bonuses or detriments?