CubColtPacer

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?

True, but in his career, he's always had at least one terrible month a season and still posted a .360-.370 OBP in 2003-2004. I guess I'm just waiting to see if he posts another terrible month or not. If his next two months are like his last, and his OBP goes up to .340-.350 range, then it becomes a tougher decision I think. Now if we can trade him for value right now for somebody looking to make a run with his hot bat, then I'm all for that as well. I keep trying to make the point that his prior career numbers included a time when he was beating out routine grounders to the infield. Again, he is not doing that anymore, so you are not talking about the same guy. He has regressed. I don't want to hear about what he has done in the past because he had wheels then that he doesn't have now. He won't post a .360-.370 OBP unless he hits .330. Without the ability to beat out as many infield hits as he used to, he's got no chance of doing that. The question is, do you know if he is beating out many less hits? You mentioned that as an observation-but has that really been a big factor? It might be-I don't know, but I don't really know, because I didn't watch all the Marlins games in the past to know how many infield hits he really had.

Which Corey Patterson? The one from 2003, the one from 2004 and this year, or the one from 2005? I think you're right if you choose 2004 and this year, but I'm just curious to which Patterson you were referring to. because i know CubBullsBears. I can say that I am pretty sure he means the KP from 2005 Well, I won't be completely sure until I hear that from him, but if that's true, they are nothing alike, including Pierre having 70 points higher OBP.

Any team can have bad luck in any season. It is managements job to structure the team in a way that minimizes the effects of that bad luck on a team. The Cubs in 04, 05, and 06 have had exceptionally bad luck. Also, though, the teams have been structured on the head of a pin-if everything went right, any of these teams could have been very good. When just one or two things go wrong, the team starts to fall apart though. When we lose more people like this year, the team becomes horrible. So, yes the team has had worse luck then most teams-and we couldn't have prepared for all the bad luck. We should have been prepared for much more of it than we actually did prepare though.

I am a subscriber to this theory, especially about losing a step from home to first. I can't tell you how many times I've seen him hit a slow roller to the left side of the infield, expect him to beat it out, and watch him get thrown out. If he's lost a step, he is overwhelmingly likely to continue to see a decline in his BA. He never walks, so his OBP will suffer as well. He might end up this year with numbers that might translate to an average season. However, it is very likely that he will stink again in the first half next year. If that happens, the Cubs will be right where they are now, or close to it, regardless of the other moves they make. You simply cannot have a .250 OBP in the leadoff spot and expect to score any runs. If the Cubs bring him back, and he hits like he has for the past 3 weeks, great. In my opinion, though, there is a much higher likelihood that he hits like he did the entire first half. That prospect is much too risky for me, even when I don't know what the alternative is. Why is it far more likely that he hits the way he hit some of the first half though? He had 2 horrible months-it's not a pattern for him, so why would you expect him to be that bad next year? His OBP my month April:.287 May: .267 June: .352 July: .390 He certainly has been hitting better for more than 3 weeks now. Could he do his June and July production for all of next year? I don't know, but I don't see how that is any less likely then for him to bat like he did in April and May. He himself said the weather had a big effect, which I think is a terrible excuse, but even if it's true, it'll be cold again next year. Secondly, he's had a nice string where his myriad of ground balls are finding holes. As was mentioned, his OBP is a direct effect of his BA, since he seldom walks. If you are relying on a random stat like BABIP as the primary driver of your OBP, you're going to see some bad stretches, especially if you're not beating out enough infield hits you used to. True, but in his career, he's always had at least one terrible month a season and still posted a .360-.370 OBP in 2003-2004. I guess I'm just waiting to see if he posts another terrible month or not. If his next two months are like his last, and his OBP goes up to .340-.350 range, then it becomes a tougher decision I think. Now if we can trade him for value right now for somebody looking to make a run with his hot bat, then I'm all for that as well.

I am a subscriber to this theory, especially about losing a step from home to first. I can't tell you how many times I've seen him hit a slow roller to the left side of the infield, expect him to beat it out, and watch him get thrown out. If he's lost a step, he is overwhelmingly likely to continue to see a decline in his BA. He never walks, so his OBP will suffer as well. He might end up this year with numbers that might translate to an average season. However, it is very likely that he will stink again in the first half next year. If that happens, the Cubs will be right where they are now, or close to it, regardless of the other moves they make. You simply cannot have a .250 OBP in the leadoff spot and expect to score any runs. If the Cubs bring him back, and he hits like he has for the past 3 weeks, great. In my opinion, though, there is a much higher likelihood that he hits like he did the entire first half. That prospect is much too risky for me, even when I don't know what the alternative is. Why is it far more likely that he hits the way he hit some of the first half though? He had 2 horrible months-it's not a pattern for him, so why would you expect him to be that bad next year? His OBP my month April:.287 May: .267 June: .352 July: .390 He certainly has been hitting better for more than 3 weeks now. Could he do his June and July production for all of next year? I don't know, but I don't see how that is any less likely then for him to bat like he did in April and May.

Which Corey Patterson? The one from 2003, the one from 2004 and this year, or the one from 2005? I think you're right if you choose 2004 and this year, but I'm just curious to which Patterson you were referring to.

From looking at the splits, I bet they would want Walker to play against certain right handers and to be the first guy off the bench otherwise. I know that the CBS Sportsline rumor about the Tigers had Walker going there just to become a bench player, so that might be true of the Rangers as well. I can't see them trading Kinsler for that pair, but contending teams sometimes do strange things, I guess.

I'm not sure about gettting Thames, but as far as the Tigers go, CBS Sportsline speculated in an article yesterday that Walker would be useful to them specifically, so maybe that could be the start of a deal.

That's not nearly enough to make this team contend. Really? Assuming that we pick up a player somewhat like Walker to play short (I'll use his name here, even though I don't expect him to be here next season), that would give us a lineup of: Pierre Walker Lee Ramirez Lee Barrett Jones/Murton Cedeno That's a pretty nice lineup. Cedeno if he plays like he has this year is mostly a hole down in the 8 spot, but his stats are probably only going to go up from this year, not down. A Jones and Murton platoon is going to give you good production out of right field to go with Lee's good production out of left (not great like this year-but good). If we shored up the pitching like the person said by signing a starter or two, that team could certainly contend. yes.. but thats also asuming the we get Carlos to come here. Of course-and I don't expect Carlos Lee to come here. I do dispute the contention though that if we got Lee along with some pitching help that we wouldn't be a contending team though. To be around 10th in offense, you need on average between a .760 and a .785 OPS for your team. At least 5 of the 9 spots in the lineup would have that OPS or better in that lineup, and some of them have enough more than that to make up for Cedeno and the pitcher at the bottom of the lineup.

That's not nearly enough to make this team contend. Really? Assuming that we pick up a player somewhat like Walker to play short (I'll use his name here, even though I don't expect him to be here next season), that would give us a lineup of: Pierre Walker Lee Ramirez Lee Barrett Jones/Murton Cedeno That's a pretty nice lineup. Cedeno if he plays like he has this year is mostly a hole down in the 8 spot, but his stats are probably only going to go up from this year, not down. A Jones and Murton platoon is going to give you good production out of right field to go with Lee's good production out of left (not great like this year-but good). If we shored up the pitching like the person said by signing a starter or two, that team could certainly contend.

I understand the frustration about not playing Walker, but Dusty can't play Theriot while he's in Triple A.

Edit: The person after me got the link-thanks for the help. BTW, it doesn't appear like it's actually in discussions, just speculation.

Pierre in June: .283/.352/.381

no need to dwell on the past..and personally I think Wood was ruined before he got to the majors because of his back issues he had as a kid.. as for Prior.. as I said in the other thread... I think he will return to form next year.That is just irresponsible. Wood wasn't ruined in 98 or 01,02,03. He was ruined by Johnnie B Baker. Plain and simple. Yup, Dusty caused Kerry to have to undergo Tommy John surgery after the 1998 season. Also, you claim Kerry wasn't ruined in 2003 yet claim he was ruined by Johnnie B Baker. But I believe Johnnie B Baker was the Cubs manager in 2003. So you are, in essence, contradicting yourself. Not sure but isn't Tommy John surgery on the ELBOW, and his current problems with his SHOULDER. (and yes I am sure it was sarcasm). And don't give me overcompensation crap, he was healthy for 3 years in 2001-2003. If he was overcompensating I doubt it would have taken 3 years to catch up with him with the way he throws. Dusty ruined both of them, plain and simple. He was ruined in 2003, the effects took place after that season. What about 2002? He threw 2 more innings in 1 more game then-now, I know he didn't throw quite as many pitches in 2002-but if 2003 completely destroyed his arm, is it possible that 2002 started him down the road towards that?

I believe he is referring to Shawn Estes in that quote.

If it was a joke, then they should have said it was a joke. Instead, they have denied that anyone from ESPN encouraged Cub fans to boo Dusty, and have accused Cubs blogs and Deadspin of doctoring the original EMail. I believe that they were courting the controversy. They wanted Dusty because he might soon be fired, and they wanted fans to heckle Dusty because it would look good on TV. That show has terrible ratings, so it reaks of a ratings ploy to me. All I did was write one article on the subject. I expected the whole thing to go away. It didn't. Looks like you got an appearance on the show cancelled because you didn't know how to read into a clear off the cuff joke "You can boo Dusty if you want". If that's recruiting people to boo dusty, me and you have very different ideas of what "recruiting" is. Seems like you got involved in something you shouldn't have. All he did was forward the e-mail on to Kasper. If Kasper thought it was a joke, he never would have shown it to anybody. When he showed it to Dusty, if Dusty had thought it was a joke, he wouldn't have canceled. If the Tribune had thought it was a joke, they wouldn't have written an entire article over it. It may have been a joke-but Kurt wasn't the only one who was pretty sure it wasn't.

I think he's just striking more people out-and so he's trying to make the strikeout pitch more than trying to let them put the ball into play. He's easily projected for both a career high in strikeouts and walks. In previous seasons, teams would put one of his early strikes in play. Now that they are getting deeper in the count, two effects are happen. They either get up early in the count and are walking more, or are getting further down in the count and striking out. Does anyone else feel like Zambrano is not throwing the sinker as much this season?

What I have found lately that I have really liked is our increased patience. I think that since the series right before the break, we seem to be working the counts much better than before on average, and that continued in this series. Even though we have struggled offensively, at least we look like a major league ballclub these past couple of weeks.

If being a player's manager had any value, I'd be all for quotes like this. But it doesn't have any value. The quotes don't cause any harm, but they give you glimpse of the real motivation and thought process of the man. Trading Maddux is good for the Cubs organization. Maybe it's bad for Dusty because he needs somebody who actually understands baseball to be in his dugout, but it's not bad for the Cubs. Furthermore, Dusty obviously has some sort of hex over Jim Hendry. Hendry went bonkers trying to woo the guy over here when nobody else was considering him as manager. Hendry wanted to give him an extension a long time ago, but it seems MacPhail's decision to wait on Hendry's extension is the only thing that kept it from happening. Hendry has gotten everything Baker has wanted, with neither man apparantly realizing that a team full of speed defenders isn't going to win baseball games. He's gotten him his veteran bench, despite the fact that a rookie bench could have outplayed them for much cheaper (thus allowing more money for impact players). No, the quote isn't that big of a deal by itself. A lot of his quotes are no big deal. The problem is he has one a week that shows you his priorities, which are misplaced. I agree. I'm not a fan of his philosophies. I just don't have any problems with those types of quotes at face value. The quote itself really doesn't hurt anything. I do believe in philosophies...simply because the cubs need to have a different approach as a whole to this game, because what they are doing is NOT working. Start at the top, work down with a plan...whether it be power hitters to take advantage of Wrigley or more OBP type players...or a mix of both. Decide on some path and follow it. Without the path, we have years like this where you don't know what's going on and can't see the light. Exactly, instead of trying to hedge their bets and signing bad players, they just need to commit to a way-be in high OBP or power. Anything would be an improvement over the current offense.

Does anyone think they should move the trading deadline back? I mean, now that we have had a few years to see the effect that the wildcard has on the race, trades have really been slowing down. Even moving it back 15 days would cause more teams to fall out of the race and be more willing to deal. Of course, teams might hold on to and get even less for players who contracts run out at the end of the year, but that is their decision to wait until the deadline to trade them anyway.

I've never believed the argument that batting order has very little effect on run production. How many more RBI would Derrek Lee have had last year with 2 .400 OBP guys hitting 1st and 2nd in the order? How many more RBI would Neifi Perez have had? How many more RBI would Burnitz have had? Good OBP gets wasted when it is followed by poor AVG/SLG. There is a particular reason that it makes sense to have good OBP guys hitting first in the game. There is also a particular reason that it makes sense to have your biggest boppers hitting directly behind those guys. And just less than 1 run is a significant increase offensively. Just less than a run a game would propel this Cub team from 30th in the league to 10-12th in run production. That is very significant. I consider 1 run a game significant, too. However, note that the worst possible lineup, the one that would produce just 3.5 runs a game, is one in which the pitcher bats first, Juan Pierre hits cleanup, and Barrett and Nevin bat 8 and 9. As bad as Dusty is at lineup construction, he's never filled out such an atrocious card. Therefore, adding 1 run per game through batting order construction is a pipe dream. The difference between the optimum batting order and the one Dusty used last night is .273 runs per game. That would be good enough to put the Cubs in 29th place in runs scored instead of 30th. I have a question. Are there worse batting orders Dusty has used? I know you mentioned that Tuesday night's game was a .273 effect. Would that be normal, or would it be slightly higher if Neifi or Cedeno was in the 2 spot, for example? I think .273 runs a game might still be significant even though. I know the Cubs are so far behind this year that it would not put them very much higher. How about last year though? That would have put us from 20th to 13th in runs scored if that effect was the same from game to game. So I guess I'm just wondering if that was a higher or lower difference of runs than a normal Dusty lineup.