stitchface

I believe it is normalized to a position - so that would suggest Cedeno's D is better than Neifi's.

Ramirez is a training with a cubs designated trainer and being monitored weekly.

The team has nothing to do with it. Its projected based on the previous three years, age, and some other factors. Nobody considers where they are playing though or who their teammates are.

I'm glad you think so (and you're not alone). Honestly I don't see it. I hope you're right. Looks pretty shaky to me right now, kind of like last year. Last year's team seemed to find new and innovative ways to lose. This year has to be luckier.

gross. i sure hope he doesn't get 400 ABs.

I'd rather keep Prior & Zambrano b/c one of them is what the Reds would have asked for. The Cubs would had to overpay for Kearns, since the Cubs & Reds are in the same division. A combination of Williams & other prospects wouldn't have done it for the Reds. IIRC, there were reports during the GM meetings that JH had talks with the Reds about Kearns & that the cost was too much. They didn't ask for Prior or Z. :wink: It might have cost us as much as Rich Hill. Did Jim tell you this? :roll: so its ok for you to suggest they asked for zambrano or prior but not for him to say it was rich hill (despite media reports that confirm this)?

at least he's making more than neifi.

last year's team was .500. this year's version is better and almost has to be less unlucky.

I don't think PECOTA accounts for your teammates. That would be reflected in his IP (should be about 180 if you are right).

Lets hope he earns that much!

I don't even see much risk for 76-79 wins. I think 80-86 is the highly probable range, with 87-92 quite possible, with an outside shot at 93+. I think Philly is at a big risk for decline if they don't find some starting pitching. The Mets are going to be better than last year's 83 win team. I think all those other teams, plus Milwaukee will compete with the Cubs. And SF might be there as well if Bonds plays a full healthy season. I'm a little more optimistic than that but not much. I would say 83-88 highly probable. I do think St. Louis is closer to 90 than 100 this year though and Houston finally drops back to .500.

the braves have produced far more position players than the cubs. the myth that they only focus on pitching is far-fetched.

I don't see better offensive production, at least not significantly better. Where is the IF depth? And where are they better off than last year if somebody goes down? If Cedeno goes down, Neifi starts all year, and they're screwed. If Aramis goes down, they're screwed. If Lee goes down, they're screwed. They have the same 2B depth this year that they had last year, but this year they might make the mistake of getting rid of the top 2B on the team for no good reason. They could simply give a lesser player an undeserved platoon with him, or even worse, the full-time gig. that was in reference to the pitching staff in terms of depth. This could be a very nasty staff. and while there are a lot of ifs, there are also a lot of alternatives. I think Aramis going down is my biggest fear. They need he and Lee playing nearly everyday. I do think they have flexibility to make a deal if they need to though. The biggest improvement will come from luck. A full season of Aramis and Pierre replacing Corey will offset some of Lee's rregression and hopefully Murton will outproduce last year's LF. With average luck, the Cubs would have scored 64 more runs last year. I don't think its unreasonable to assume they make up 50 of those and score 750 or so this year. 725-775 seems like a reasonable range. The pitching staff is potentially dominant and could allow less than 650 runs, perhaps even fewer. The offseason has been bleak for the Devil Cubs mostly because they simply failed to take steps to be a dominant club. Nevertheless, this season is not hopeless. 90 wins is a real possibility and more is not unimaginable.

the cubs have a lot more depth this year. if some of the IFs don't work out they are still in better shape than last year. and the pen could be very good. combine that with better offensive production and this team should be markedly improved. I am willing to bet the cardinals don't have their top five starters all year again either.

You guys are missing the point - from now on we should refer to all things we don't like about our team as the "devil cubs." Things we do like can be shortened to " "

WOO! Go Bears!

nevertheless, this seems to be a consistent trend for the Cubs under the Baker regime.

Rough estimate based on the fact that a 10 run swing in a team's differential is roughly equivalent to one win. If I were being more precise I'd adjust for run environment by setting the RPW (runs per win) at 10*sqrt(RPG/9). For the 2005 Cubs their RPG was 8.75 and their RPW was 9.86. Technically, then, that 64 run underperformance cost them 6.49 wins. I mostly asked because for a couple years the cubs underperformed run production, run prevention and pythagenport. I was wondering if this was true again.

I can't believe you couldn't look this up yourself but since I was at the site . . . http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/ticketing/index.jsp

I believe both will make the HOF. McGwire will be "punished" for his possible steroid use by a delayed vote where he would have been a first ballot candidate. I think that statement will be made by the voters, then he'll get in.

I'd say a good deal of it was bad luck. Using my run estimator of choice (XR) the Cubs should have scored 767 runs last year, a full 64 runs more than what they ended up scoring. Had their actual total been more in line with their expected total, they likely would have won 85-86 games; not quite playoff-worthy, but still not a bad team. What was the reason for the discrepancy? Some of it might have been due to the unusual "shape" of their offensive output; lots of batting average and pretty good SLG, but a thoroughly unimpressive OBP. A lot of it probably has to do with the Cubs' inability to get timely hitting last year. I don't have the numbers right now, but I believe the Cubs rated among the worst in the league in hitting with RISP and less than two outs. The good news is that situational hitting stats show almost no year-to-year consistency so the 2006 Cubs will almost certainly be better in this regard. In short, if Hendry had kept the exact same 2005 team for 2006 and it each player's performance held steady, I'd guess that we'd score 750-760 runs next year. Does this mean Hendry should be content with minimal offensive improvement this offseason? Nope. While those 50-60 free runs are nice, regression to the mean will probably eat up a good portion of them. If Lee falls just halfway back to his career averages in 2006, that's loss of about 25 runs. If he falls completely back to his pre-2005 rates we're 50 runs in the hole. A similar disclaimer can be made about Neifi if he gets any appreciable playing time. Meanwhile, the improvements made to the offense have been minimal. Jones is unlikely to be provide anything more than what Burnitz gave us last year. I have high hopes that Murton and Cedeno will have fine MLB careers, but it's unfair to expect them to provide the huge offensive boost the team is looking for. About the only significant improvement made to the offense this season was the acquisition of Pierre. (And that's mostly just because CF was unbelievably atrocious last season, not because Pierre is a huge threat on offense.) Yes, the Cubs were unlucky last season, and we probably will get several dozen "free" runs just because that luck is likely to change. Unfortunately regression also looks to eat away some of those gains while few actual improvements have been made to the offense. If the Cubs are to contend next season, it will all hinge on our pitching. If Wood and/or Miller can come back fully healthy then the Cubs should be poised to make a decent run at the playoffs. If our staff continues to have a few health problems, however, we're looking at another season of .500-ish baseball. is that 85 wins based on a revised pythagenport or just based off of 79 wins plus however many runs?

I hope for the opposite - that dusty uses his relievers to best leverage their talents. why do you care if its a save situation or not? just win the game. No, I don't care if it's a save situation per say. I just don't want Dempster (and this really could apply to everyone in the pen) used three days in a row when it's not necessary. Example: If Dempster pitches an inning one day, and then is brought into a game the next day when the Cubs are up five runs in the 9th, I think that's stupid. Save him for the next day. What if the next day the Cubs are in a tight game in the 9th and they feel like they need Dempster. Well, you have to pitch him for the third day in a row (when Ohman, Williamson, Weurtz, etc) probably could have closed out the previous day's game. That's very poorly worded. I hope you know what I mean. No, I see what you mean. You are concerned with overuse more than situational use. I think if Williamson returns to form, we ought to see he and ohman in high leverage late game situations. Let Dempster get the saves - these guys will win you the game in the 7th and 8th innings.

its not like he walked . . .

It was the other guy that killed the shark. Maybe we are all wrong. that's something I would bet on!

so if the move is unimportant, why did you make this comment?