CubColtPacer

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.

Oops..sorry everyone..my statement is the second to last paragraph I'm pretty sure-the one about Pagan being a 4th or 5th OF. I didn't realize I was in the quotes. Again, sorry.

You don't want to let Murton get hot here. He's 17-47 with 12 runs and 10 rbi. That would defeat the purpose of the platoon. And besides, Dusty's more powerful than you think. Did you see that HR Nevin hit last night ? Clutch. That's what's been missing this year in LF. Clutchness. The Cubs need that. I mean, we've got enough young guys in there already. True..but at least it is Pagan. We'll see more of what he can do. I mean, it could be Nevin! I'd love to see Murton there-I'm just glad this lineup is full of people who could possibly contribute in 2007. I don't think Pagan can truly be a starter. I just want to see if he deserves to be on a ML roster by being on a 4th or 5th OF, and he needs a few at-bats to see if that's true or not. I am really not understanding this love-fest with Pagan lately. If people really believe Pagan is going to contribute to the team in 2007, the 07 team will be the worst team in the National League.

You don't want to let Murton get hot here. He's 17-47 with 12 runs and 10 rbi. That would defeat the purpose of the platoon. And besides, Dusty's more powerful than you think. Did you see that HR Nevin hit last night ? Clutch. That's what's been missing this year in LF. Clutchness. The Cubs need that. I mean, we've got enough young guys in there already. True..but at least it is Pagan. We'll see more of what he can do. I mean, it could be Nevin! I'd love to see Murton there-I'm just glad this lineup is full of people who could possibly contribute in 2007.

That's not completely true. Novoa is terrible, that's for sure. Those runs would have been unearned either way though. The first batter Novoa faced was the double play ball that Walker dropped at second-that should have ended the inning. Then came a single, then an infield single, and then the ball to Ramirez-again, should have been a DP to end the inning-didn't happen. Next batter was the second GS. Novoa pitched terribly, but he didn't deserve the runs Sunday night.

Forgive me if this sounds unkind, but one thing you are not is grounded in reality. Why would you say that? After reading several strawman arguments based on imposible premises, I believe I've accurately charachertized your recent work on this board. Ok, let me try to explain. I use extreme examples sometimes because it i s easier to see that there is actually a difference by inflating the difference to a ridiculous level. Obviously there would be no team that would have players with a 1.000 OBP and 0 OBP. Instead, though, by seeing how that team would have a large difference by what batting order does, it is made easier to see how batting order does make a difference even using real life numbers. If my extreme examples are not working, I will stop. Here is a real life example that my friend and I were just discussing. Let's say that the Giants with Barry Bonds of the previous few years moved him to the 8th spot in the lineup with the pitcher batting behind him, and move the 8th place hitter into Barry's spot. They make no other changes besides this. What do you think would happen? Now many times Barry might come up with runners on-but pitchers will never pitch to him with the pitcher on deck. If there are two outs, Barry gets walked, and the pitcher makes an out that will end the inning. Therefore, Barry's production in the order is partially wasted, and the Giants run production goes down. The same thing happens at the top of the order. The 8th place hitter, with a worse OBP, cannot drive the runners at the top of the order in with regularity. Therefore, switching two people in the lineup makes the run production at the top and the bottom suffer.

Forgive me if this sounds unkind, but one thing you are not is grounded in reality. Why would you say that?

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example. It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality. I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up. How do you account for the fact that Neifi Perez has arguably been our best RBI man this year ??? Percentage of baserunners driven in 04/03 - 07/18 BDI LOB RBI% Restovich 1 2 0.333 Perez 20 59 0.253 Blanco 15 45 0.250 Walker 31 96 0.244 Jones 33 112 0.228 Barrett 26 89 0.226 Ramirez 37 136 0.214 Murton 23 103 0.183 Lee 10 55 0.154 Nevin 9 51 0.150 Mabry 6 36 0.143 Bynum 4 25 0.138 Cedeno 20 130 0.133 Hairston 4 27 0.129 Pagan 2 16 0.111 Pierre 12 101 0.106 Womack 1 14 0.067 Theriot 0 3 0.000 CUBS 267 1172 0.186 Sorry Fred..I actually don't mind Neifi, but I know most people can't stand him and he has a low OBP, so I thought using him would ground it more in reality.

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example. It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality. I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up.