noisesquared

That would be like saying that the signing of John Mabry gives the Cubs the flexibility to trade D Lee. Hatteberg is not starting 1B material any more - he was out OPS'd by NEIFI last year (Hatteberg - .677, Neifi - .681) :shock:

Rusch is pitching in this one. My initial guess is that D Lee goes nuts offensively in that game. Of course that describes most Cubs games last year :D

The optimism comes from the same place it has for the last few years. Zambrano, Prior, and Wood. If those 3 pitchers each can give 30+ starts and 200IP, the Cubs make the playoffs, regardless of the ineptitude of the offense or manager.

I have thought that both sides of this issue have good reasons to support their opinion for months now. I waver back and forth on whether I would be willing to give up on Pie before knowing more about his likelihood of fulfilling on his potential. But I still think that Pie's ability to play CF and play it incredibly well, his arm and his speed on the basepaths are going unacknowledged in this thread. These are abilities that he possesses now. We don't have to wonder if he will be able to do them at the major league level. The base running still needs some refinement, but his defense, by all accounts is there now. He is already better than Dunn at that and is able to do it at near gold glove levels in a much more impactful position (CF) than Dunn's (LF). I don't think that big difference in their games is being taken into account when you are making your argument. Nobody is trading Dunn for Pie for defensive purposes. There are quite a few guys who can handle major league positions from a defensive standpoint. The problem, and really the thing that matters most, by far, is his hitting. A gold glove caliber fielder who can't hit is worthless. You trade Pie for Dunn because you know Dunn is a great major league ballplayer, and he is young, while Pie is still a major unknown. And Pie is also blocked at his primary position by Pierre. If Hendry locks Pierre up long-term, then Pie becomes a corner outfielder, where his speed and defense is less important and any deficiencies in his offensive game will be less tolerable. Pie has a much greater chance to be an above average CF than an above average corner OF. I think the argument could be made that Pie's potential as an offensive/defensive CF might not be worth Dunn, but I can't see any argument over who'll be the more productive corner OF.

You're putting words into people's mouths. The offense is a problem, but it's been acknowledged it's not the worst out there. Sure it's been improved. But at least in my eyes, not nearly as much as it could and should have been improved. And perhaps the biggest problem is it shouldn't have been as bad as it's been in the recent past if the Cubs weren't so insistent on handicapping themselves with an overly aggressive offense that refuses to walk. It's not pessimism to point out weakness. It is foolish to ignore weaknesses. The offense is a problem. The health of the pitching staff is a problem. The pitching staff could conceivably be very healthy and dominant. The offense does not even offer a glimmer of hope for dominance. I don't disagree with your premise, as a valid case can be made for the offense not being any noticably better, and it's probably a more realistic case than can be made than for the offense improving. However, I feel that in this instance, believing the offense will not improve much or at all is a pessimistic, but not unjustified, viewpoint.

I would bet Cedeno outperforms Neifi. But I'd hesitate to bet that the Cubs 2006 SS production eclipses the Cubs 2005 SS production. Well that all depends on how much time Dustbrain gives to Cedeno over Neifster. But your statement very well might be right, since Nomar was on fire when he came back - and it's doubtful Cedeno will put up those 2nd half Nomar numbers in his first full year at SS. But much of Nomar's production was from 3rd base, after Ramirez went down. Nomar Had 34 appearances at 3B, compared to 26 at SS. He was hitting 238/297/337 on 8/26, when he made his first appearance at 3B, I believe.

How in the world is in pessimism to point out that 9th in the league in runs scored is below average, and therefore bad for a team that should be contending? How is it pessimism to point out that the 4th best OPS was actually made up of really good SLG and really bad OBP, which was due to a terribly low number of walks taken? You can't look at facts and dismiss them as pessimism. Ignoring facts does no good. Would you like it if Jim Hendry said, "well, we had a good OPS and good batting average so obviously there's no wrong with the offense." I wouldn't. That would be ignoring the reasons why a 4th ranked OPS could result in a substandard 9th place runs scored ranking. This is absurd. The facts are the facts. 9th place in runs scored isn't good. It's far from good. The reason they were 9th is because they had a fatal flaw with their offense, they didn't walk. They were, and are, a very impatient team as a whole. This lack of patience leads to a poor OBP, which holds down runs scored and prevents wins. This isn't pessimism. It's refusing to ignore reality. I think it's pessimistic to say the 2006 offense will suck based on the fact the 2005 offense sucked, in spite of the fact that the most glaring OBP problems have at least been semi-addressed. Pierre even at his career lows would be a huge upgrade over last year's CF, and full seasons of Murton and Cedeno should be better than last year's SS and LF production. Granted, it's up to Baker to allow Murton and Cedeno to play, which is the one area I'm pessimistic about.

You Louisana guys sure do stick together, don't you ? :wink: Louisiana or not, there's not one scintila of evidence to back up such a ludicrous statement. My most lasting memory of Todd Walker right now is: Rich Hill's start against the Mets in Shea Stadium. It was bottom of the 2nd, men on 1st and 3rd no outs. Soft ground ball hit to Walker's left. Walker runs and fields the ball. Instead of taking the safe out at first, or even riskier, trying to turn two, he throws home, having ZERO chance to nail the runner at home. I think Barrett was surprised by the throw. The runner scores easily, leaving men at 1st and second with nobody out. The Mets go on to knock Hill out in that inning. Just a dumb play that really stood out in a season of dumb plays. I'm not saying Walker is a dumb player, but he (and Barrett too - the PHI rundown to allow the winning run to score argggghhhhh) seems inclined to makes some really bad decisions with the ball. If I never see Walker make another toss-the-ball-directly-from-his-glove-to-1st play, it'll be too soon.

Wild Card/NL Champ Houston's not dependant on pitching? And they lost Clemens. And Pettite had a ridiculous year, that will be near impossible to duplicate. The Cubs with even a decent run of health - give them a healthy Z, Prior and either Wood or Miller available all year, Maddux as a #4, and WilliamsRuschHill at #5, and the SP is very good. If the bullpen pans out, this is a playoff caliber staff, even with a mediocre offense. I bet before last season, the Cards had similar concerns: can Carpenter stay healthy? Will Morris come back from surgery? Is Mulder's hip ok? It worked out well enough for them.

I think the Cubs DO have the pitching to win the WS - they have no more question marks than any body else in the division pitching-wise. If Prior can keep line drives off his elbow and avoid collisions on the base paths, I think he's in for a monster year. I think Miller and Wood will combine to provide about 45 starts, and I believe they will provide career norm performance in those starts. That'll leave about 20 starts to be divvied up between Rusch/Williams/Hill, which should be fine. And the bullpen is solid and deep at worst. The Cards had Carpenter and Suppan both pitching with ERA's a full run under career norms. Same in Houston with Clemens and Pettite. As good as all of those pitchers have been through their careers, nobody could've seen that type of performance coming. If the Cubs have 2 starters make 30+ starts each pitching a run under their career average, the Cubs will be a playoff team.

And if memory serves correctly, Thomas got beat out by a steroid enhanced Jason Giambi for the 2000 AL MVP. Thomas has always been a huge guy - he was a tight end at Auburn when Bo Jackson was there, IIRC. To me, his numbers have never been indicative of steroid use - he's been a consistent 30-40HR guy who puts up ridiculous OBP when healthy.

What a thread :( What happened to attack the post, not the poster? I enjoy reading a good debate about anything baseball related, but let's leave the personal stuff at the door. The season is not going to get here fast enough - there's a lot of edgy NSBB'ers around here lately, and with the way the offseason has went, it's probably not going to change until pitchers and catchers report. And it may get worse then :lol:

The best thing about no option in the contract, as opposed to the Dempster and Williamson deals, is that the Cubs and Miller both must feel that he is going to be a major contributor this year.

I think Jackson was the Dodger's equivalent of Angel Guzman - great stuff, but had a hard time staying healthy. If he can get/stay healthy, that might not be a bad deal for the Rays, as Jackson had #1-#2 starter potential. If nothing else, this hopefully indicates that the Rays are ready and willing to deal...

I agree and to be honest, ignorance is bliss in this situation. The memories of Sosa and his 60+ seasons are great as a Cubs fan; I don't want to taint them with thoughts of steroids. Big Mac is another great example, although I don't recall him hanging around with rumors of NRI to Spring Training or the possibility of playing in Japan. Sammy...you need to hang it up bro! McGwire retired more because of the inability to stay healthy than because he couldn't play. If he'd been able to play a full season in 2001, his last year, he projects out to hitting 45 HR. And had a 1.200+ OPS in 2000. Not comparable to Sammy IMO...

Well, at least at the rate they're going, neither Hendry nor Baker will be around to jerk Eric around when he finally makes the big club.

Exactly. Its why I can't believe in "clutch" players. I DO believe in clutch MOMENTS though. Theres no doubt you can go ahead a hit clutch, but I would never say that player is now a big game player because of it. I know its human and all to do it, but it just seems so jumpy to label a guy clutch. Cause that "clutch" label usually comes after ONE big moment he does something in. I guess I'm just not a jumpy guy when it comes to labeling people. What happens if a high school player is so far ahead of his peers talent wise that he is able to perform regardless of pressure? I would guess a high school age player that is showing the talent that interests scouts is playing on a different level than most of his peers. This could contine through that player's ascent through college/minors, until one day he's playing with peers who are equal or superior talentwise at whatever level, at which point performing becomes a challenge, and the on-field pressure to perform becomes something that this player has not yet encountered. I agree that all players do encounter pressure from early on in their careers, but if there is a significant talent-gap between that player and his peers, he probably can't help but to perform, regardless of the pressure.

As I understand it, James is saying that due to the small sample size of 'clutch' at-bats per year and the high amount of luck involved in every at-bat, it is impossible to compare yearly 'clutch' numbers - there is too much luck involved. Exactly, there's way too much variation for performance in 'clutch' situations to be predictive or more than an afterthought in player evaluation. That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that all studies to date have failed to prove "clutch" AND have failed to disprove it. James believes the methods used to determine if clutch exists were flawed. He seems open to the idea that someday there may be a study that proves clutch, but the right metric has yet to be discovered. Sorry, I was referring to noisesquared's comment below the quote, I had already read the article previously. Maybe I should have responded to noisesquared and not you. But my point is that James is not saying that study has disproved clutch, or that there's too small a sample size. He's saying it HAS NOT been disproven, and that there is not yet a metric to measure it. In essence -stretch- he's saying its an intangible. I would be curious to see, as a clutch metric, what a player's OPS over a 5 year span would be in the following condition: - the 7th inning or later of games their team is losing by 4 or less runs This would encompass a lot of scenarios not covered by 2 out RISP BA, or late inning BA. I mean, if a guy takes a wlk to lead off an inning when his team is down by 1, that's a clutch AB. If a player hits a 2 run HR with his team down by one in the bottom of the eighth with nobody out, that's still clutch. The five year span would be necessary to generate sample size, and the 4 runs would differentiate from a blowout game. I would bet the numbers would be at least slightly below career norms in most cases, with a lot more anti-clutch cases than clutch cases. I guess you'd also have to factor in that if our team is losing late in a gmes, a batter is more likely to see righty/lefty bullpen matchups and specialist setup men and closers, further decreasing the likelihood of attaining career norm type numbers.

i never said that clutch pitching was fictional, just clutch hitting. pitchers, i believe, are subject to "clutchness". Pitchers have more control over their performance than hitters - i.e. they are trying to throw a specific pitch to a specific location at a specific speed. If there is any sort of 'anti-clutch' issue, then the pitcher is more likely to lose his mechanics/concentration during pressure situations and it is going to be very noticeable. Hawkins seemed to be the poster boy for this type of situation.

Every time I read a clutch hitting thread, my mind always goes back to this Bill James article someone posted a link to a while ago: http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.pdf The pertinent part from Bill James: As I understand it, James is saying that due to the small sample size of 'clutch' at-bats per year and the high amount of luck involved in every at-bat, it is impossible to compare yearly 'clutch' numbers - there is too much luck involved.

Yeah, but Pierre suc*s. So you know what you're getting, big deal. An expected kick in the nuts is still a kick in the nuts. How is a .355 career OBP, 199H/yr avg a terrible thing for a leadoff hitter? And so what if it's all speed dependant - I don't anticipate Pierre slowing down significantly in the next few years anymore than I expect A-Ram to get weaker or Prior's arm to fall off. If Pierre's a kick in the nuts, then the Cubs could use a few more kicks like that.

Shouldn't this thread be called 'Royals Sign 3 ex-Cubs, and one other"? Mient-something-awicz was a Cub for a couple of minutes during the Nomar trade, I thought...

I strongly disagree. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Cards may have had better players than the White Sox, but the White Sox had the best team. I personally define team as being the sum of its parts, and while the White Sox lacked the outstanding individual performances that the Yanks, BoSox, and Cards had, the cumulative White Sox performance was the best record in the AL and a dominant 11-1 postseason. The 2005 White Sox were the best team. If the Yankees won 99 games with an 11-1 postseason in 2005, the media would be calling them one of the greatest teams in history. The White Sox get called lucky. Amazing. **edited to correct statistical error

Correlation does NOT equal causation. Does a world series appearance or win mean that Dusty, or Guillen, or Brenly are good managers? Of course not. I don't think it's a fair comparison between GM's and field manager's. Both positions' performance is a result of the players' on-field performance, but the GM acquires the players, the manager only works with what he's given. It's very possible if the GM does his job and provides enough on-field talent that the on-field manager's performance has a minimal impact on the team's success.

Bruce Levine was reporting on the 8 or 8:20 ESPN 1000 update that the Sox offer for Tejada would be McCarthy, Uribe, and prospects, and that the Cubs 5 player offer was still out there. Levine also said that don't believe what is being said out of Baltimore, Tejada is on the trading block.