third eye

I'm pretty sure the last time they did anything like that was in the 2005 season. After prior got hit by the line drive they won 9 out of ten. Then later that season they won 8 out of 10 or 9 of 11 towards the end of August, giving everyone false hope that they might get hot enough to win the wildcard. I think the key to ripping off those kinds of streaks is having a pitching staff that can consistently deliver quality starts. Once Guzman becomes a fixture in the rotation, I think this staff can.

I can't believe how happy I am to see this fact! Agreed. And even more than that, Rich Hill has not walked a single batter all spring while striking out 10 in 10 innings. If thats not a good sign about his ability to carry forward the success from the second half of last year, I dont know what is.

Who says Pie is not ready? :shock: :wink:

Danesoz - I love the contrast between your sig and Zambrano pic. :lol: So far it looks like the the starters for the most part have pitched reasonably well. While I am concerned a bit about Prior's velocity, we did hear some reports last week that prior looked great in his live-hitter sessions. Wasnt there some blurb about DLee being impressed with the pitches he threw him? Clearly Prior didnt have good stuff today, but if he showed good stuff earlier in the spring, so its not like he has shown absolutely nothing so far. In any case, I think that news got everyone expecting more from him in this outing. I guess we never learn. I am not writing him off. I still am hopefull he'll have a good year, but not every outing when coming back from arm problems will be great. Lets wait and see.

The chances of scoring by being on 3rd as opposed to 2nd aren't improved enough to outweigh the negative of the likelihood of being thrown out and killing the rally altogether. Oh, I agree with that, but you have to understand the likihood of getting thrown out in that situation versus applying a blanket caught stealing rate - in the same way you'd be more likely to try to take third on a weak outfield arm than on a strong one. Why wouldnt the abilities of the pitcher and catcher come into play in the same way? I'm only arguing for the circumstance where it gets you to third with just one out. An average base stealer who is successful 75% of the time would probably have that success rate increase to over 90% with a slow battery. I have no stats to back that up, so feel free to pile on if I'm wrong. With a runner on 2nd and 1 out, if the next two hitter are .300 hitters, then there is a 49% chance that neither of them gets a hit (Yes, I'm using average rather than OBP, because we're talking about driving the run in). So we're about 50/50 with good hitters up that the run will score. With a 90% success rate of getting to 3rd, the next hitter would only need to put the ball in play 60% of the time in order for stealing third to be a better proposition. This is what my intuition tells me. Those of you who have the actual numbers out there, let me know if I'm way off base here. Also, clearly, I've used situational adjustments here, so I'm not advocating running all the time. Just when the situation is favorable.

I'm not sure i understand the argument that says it's no better to have someone on third with one out vs on second with one out. There are significantly more ways to score without needing a hit (beyond wild pitches). most contact to the right side and most fly balls for a runner with Soriano's speed (or even average speed) will score him. Even if the infield is drawn in during a tied game, there is a better chance for a ball to get through. I agree that with any slow pitching/catching combination and a good base stealer it should be considered. Now of course you dont run if it will be the first or third out of the inning at third. But this, to me, is the same as why you stretch out an extra base hit for a triple when there is only one out in the inning. Am I misunderstanding the anti-3rd stealers here, or are you arguing that no one should try to take third in any case ever? I understand the sentiment against Baker's "clogging the bases" argument, but this strikes me as extreme on the other end.

Another point to note in the Johnson comparison is that he had a bad first half before netting three top prospects for Seattle. Whoever traded for him knew they were potentially only gettting him for a half a season, yet still there were teams willing to give up packages of top prospects for a pitcher having a down year. Also, its not like losing Johnson (then Griffey and ARod) destroyed the franchise. Yes, losing Z would hurt, but it would not be the end of the world for the Cubs. I personally hope they would hang on to him until the allstar break even if unsigned to see where the team is. I cannot see any way thet Hendry would trade him before then.

So true!! Seriously, I always thought they were trying to groom Mazur for a play by play gig at some point, but it never took. I thought he was alright as a reporter, but not more than that. It will be interesting to see how that works out. Only mildly interesting, though. Seriously, I never understood what Pat was doing during those times. What's up with that? On another note, Giles Bros, (and forgive me if I've mentioned this before) I appreciate your optimistic view on the state of affairs with the Cubs. I especially enjoy the diamterically opposed imagerey of your Piniella icon with your thoughts on the team. This may not be the right thread for the following opinion, but (and note that this is heavily intoxicated) let me throw a few predictions out there: 1. Soriano puts up numbers similar to the 2004 numbers 2. Rich Hill wins 16 games with a sub 3.50 ERA (OK, jump all over me for throwing a win stat out there) 3. Prior has a lousy first half but regains form in the second half, ending up with a sub 3.80 ERA. I know there is not a sabremtrically driven argument for this, but thats what my gut tells me. Just throwin it out there, without having the patience to post in the appropriate thread....

Very entertaining, Wilk. I enjoyed that. Particularly the dad -> bad at baseball logic. Compelling stuff. :lol:

I agree with giving Theriot the SS position. Just seems like Hendry is gun shy about that after what happenned with Cedeno last year. The big difference is Theriot's discipline, which seemed to be there in the minors as well. Even though Ronny hit .300 in his time in the majors in 2005, his OBP was still mediocre. Theriot has a much better chance at being a solid #2 hitter (And for the record, I am in the camp that believes that batting order does matter). As far as fielding, he has played his share of ss. I see him as somewhere between an ekstein and a freel (optimistically). I just hope he gets his chance this year. And if the 9mm it would take to get lugo were applied to starting pitching, i would much rather take that tradeoff.

I apologize if this has already been posted (havent been able to go through 50 pages of commentary), but I'm guessing that this contract was thrown out there as a very strong but exploding offer to Soriano's agent. Complete speculation on my part, but it may have been a situation where the offer, at this size was only on the table briefly to avoid a bidding war, and specifically, to avoid a repeat of the furcal situation from last year. Also, if it is true that only the first six years are guaranteed, then I am OK with this. Now I had no idea the offer would ever get that close to the beltran deal. But after complaining for years that the Cubs never signed top free agents, I cant complain about this at all. It's been said previously but this contract is only a problem if it completely prohibits any further signings this year. I'm not conviced that it will. In terms of dead weight from this contract in Soriano's late 30's, you might only have to pick up half of his contract in later years if the club is trully in the tanks and he is traded to a contender. Yes it is a risk, but at least there is further run producing depth (No, I'm not going to go toe-to-toe with the sabrematricians on this board about the predictability of this) on this team in case one of the big bats goes down with injury again. I personally think that greater overall stats over the course of an entire year trump selective splits. Interesting debate on the whole though...

Now color me ignorant, but i wouldn't think that would be the WORST thing that could happen. Think about what you are offering. One 4.30 pitcher in the AL with 180 IP and one 4.50 pitcher in the AL wih 200IP this year. Add Hill to that and I would expect our top 4 pitchers each with over 180 IP and 30 starts. I expect Hill to put up about a 14-12 3.90 this year (maybe aggressive by some peoples' estimation, but thats what I expect). If we assume a .500 record out of Padilla/Lilly and a 4.20 ERA (improved since its the NL), that would mean we'd have a top 4 that is reasonably solid - enough to get the team in 90 win contention ASSUMING they bring in a big bat and a complimentary bat along with a full and healthy season from ARAM and DLee. Let me be clear, though. I think pitching is a top priority this offseason. But the scenario presented here wouldn't be the worst thing in the world IF we beefed up the offense. The only concern I have is if these pitching acquisitions mirror the offensive acquisitions we make.

BacktoBanks, that has to be one of the most accurate descriptions of changes in perceptions in the sporting world I've read. Well said. What really irritates me is when the talking heads on the radio and TV buy into it. I personally think Boers and Bernstein are two of the biggest perpetrators of this - although I still find them entertaining from time to time. Sorry to get off topic.

I have a VERY hard time believing that Aramis' demands are only 5/75. Look, alot of people are making it sound as though Hendry doesnt realize what is riding on this. He knows his job is at stake, and if Aramis walks it wont be because Hendry was asleep at the wheel or oblivious IMO. We can certainly criticise his decisions and judgement in the past, but to claim he is too lazy or incompetent to understand the hole this will create is a stretch, in my view. It makes much more sense that Aramis' agent is having him hold out until the last possible moment. If Aramis told his agent he wants to stay in Chicago, then his agent's duty would be to get as much for him here as possible. There would be no incentive to sign early with the leverage they have. And there is very little downside to them asking for premium money. Hendry's language on the matter reminds me of the tone during DLee's negotiations. Granted DLee wasnt in a contract year, but Hendry had to show some level of discretion in his statements in order to maintain some leverage. Now, if Aramis doesnt really care to stay here, then why would his agent advise him to accept anything the cubs offer right now? He will surely get at least 5/75 on the open market, and that's why it makes no sense to me that those are the only demands his side is making right now.

My biggest concern if they are sold is that they might go to a financial sponsor in a leveraged buyout. Usually sports teams would make terrible LBO candidates, but a sponsor might look at recurring revenue streams through a loyal fanbase in addition to the tourist attendance factor at Wrigley and view it as a possibility. Financial sponsors have raised a ton of capital over the last few years and need to put it to work. They are, for the first time, engaging in pseudo bidding wars for certain assets. The problem with a sponsor buyer is that they run their portfolio companies to generate cashflow to pay off the acquisition debt. In other words, there would be a very strict budget in terms of team payroll. Certainly lower than it is now. Let me temper this by saying that there is a very very slim chance that a sponsor would outbid a buyer like Cuban. In other words, they could not pay more than someone who wants to be a long term buyer, because they need to quickly generate returns and exit the business, which precludes them from overpaying. I only brought this up because last year there were rumors of finacial sponsor interest in the Tribune company as a whole swirling around the market.

How much difference in terms of production would there be between an outfield of: Murton (LF) - Soriano (CF) - Jones (RF) and an outfield of: CLee (LF) - Jones (CF) - Murton (RF) Offensively, I dont think it would be that different. You are adding 30-35 HR, 90-110 RBI (or 50-70 more than Pierre) with an OBP around 340-350 either way. The defense in the second option would be suspect. However, we don't know how the first option would look defensively anyway. The major difference is that the second one would be cheaper and would not require the same contract length (assuming CLee really does want to come here and will sign for a reasonable price). The extra money could then be poured into resigning Aramis, going after Schmidt and possibly Lugo (leaving Izturis and Theriot to battle it out for 2b. That should be a decent lineup. Just need additional bottom-of-the rotation depth. I was never high on the CLee idea before, but if we are looking at overpaying for an unknown defensively in center, couldn't we live with Jones there and add similar productivity at a corner for cheaper?

Welcome to the club. 8-) Hey, I'm in, too. Not only that, but also a small Texas college no less. I was an econ and math double major as well. It should come as no surprise that there are a lot of us on this board, given the sheer volume of statistical analysis thrown around. I think the collective analytic mindset of this board is also made obviously clear by the frustration that is voiced when the Cubs' decision makers talk about intangibles and other non-quantifiable measures (though I personally don't agree with complete reliance on numbers). It is also why this subset of the population was more infuriated by Baker's non-analytic approach than the average person, IMO.

OK, my bad on the non-quote from JH about "untouchability". Guess I've just heard that thrown out there too often. Also, I wasn't claiming any deal was in place - my guess is that would be a case of tampering, or even that any promises were made between Hendry and Piniella. My only point is that they had to be on the same page about direction this offseason. Now I saw where Lou said there had been no trade discussions about ARod, and it may be that it is a media creation. However, I would think that management would do everything necessary to avoid embarrassment in the offseason from a PR perspective, and that would include cutting off any unfounded rumors like that. The quotes from Piniella didnt sound all that categorical to me. But I didnt see the press conference, so I can't say how it actually came across. And I'm not trying to be a wishful thinker here. I actually don't care too much for the idea of trading for ARod for the reasons I mentioned before. The way this has unfolded just strikes me as odd. On another note, can anyone tell me what is the earliest that teams are allowed to officially discuss trades?

I have to really believe that Jim and Lou had a detailed discussion about this before the hiring. I can't imagine that given the PR disaster of this year, they would allow Lou to talk freely about this sort of thing without there being real merit to it. My concern about it, though, is how much will Lou push Hendry to get a deal done, and how much can Jim possibly push back on his marquee hire? I have to think they must have been on the same page about how to approach all of this before the hiring. Jim has said that Z and Hill were untouchable in the past. Hopefully at least the Z part is true. And I actually dislike the idea of parting with Hill also now, because I believe he is a critical part of the rotation. This especially bothers me since they would not have to give anyone up to get Soriano. Combined with the fact that this was actually put out in the media leads me to believe there may be a multi-team deal that they have in mind. There is no way Hendry will give up Z and I don’t think the Yankees will do it for Hill as the centerpiece (not because he won't be good next year, but its not the type of blockbuster name that would fly in NYC - and how often do you see the Yankees trading away allstars for ML ready prospects?). The only thing that makes sense to me is that there is legitimately a multi team deal that Hendry believes is realistic out there. And yes, he has pulled it off in the past. Wasn't Nomar a four team deal? I guess this is all speculation on my part, but that’s the only way I can put all of these facts together.

See, this is where we differ. I'd like all Cubs players to be required to sport handlebar moustaches. Sethuel, That is a little heavy handed, don't you think? They should have the option of handlebar or a fu-man-chu. But upper lip facial hair should be an absolute requirement. On another note, as much of a fan as I am of Theriot, is anyone else bothered by his attempt to have a moustache or goatee or whatever the heck that is on his face?

There probably is something to the notion of setting the tone for a team. Remember when he chewed out his team early in the season for playing like garbage? They tore off a long winning streak right after that. It may be that the team needed that kind of kick in the pants. They really never looked back after that (besides the last week of the season). We never saw anything like that, at least not publicly, out of our manager this year. Not saying that that made the difference in the season, but setting those expectations from someone who was a proven winner in the past might have had some impact.

J-Shils, I'm with you. Yes the potential is there. But if we don't think we can get a 200 inning sub 4 ERA out of both the 2 and 3 slots from people we know have done it in the past, I think we're screwed. Hendry has acknowledged that it was a mistake to not have better proven pitching depth this year. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that he will go with a couple of number 4 starters through trade or free agency and assume that Hill will be a number two. I hope I'm wrong about this.

Maybe I'm one of the few who thinks that DLee's 2005 season is not an aberration. But the numbers he put up in the first couple of weeks of this season combined with his numbers when he came back the second time were totally in line with what he put up last year. He widened his stance and fixed a hole in his swing. While he may not hit 46 HR again, I think it's likely he can put up 40hr and 110+ RBI again over the next few years. I find him way more valuable than ARod. I know this is me being a homer, but there are things about the way he plays the game - and I hate to throw out "intangibles" again - that I don't know if ARod has. I don't think Sammy had them either, even in his best years. I wish I had something more concrete to back up this opinion, but that’s what my gut says about him. It's the exact opposite feeling you got about a player like Mcgriff when we got him for the stretch run in 2001 and the unfortunate 2002 campaign.

I've read a good amount of discussion on this board about DLee's impact on the team. There was alot of criticism about Dusty's assessment of DLee making a difference of 10+ wins to this team, and a number of people argued that his VORP, or some other measure (maybe win share?) was much lower. However, I would argue that this does not take into account anything about the psychology of the team around him. Particularly, there were many long losing streaks this year that stemmed from our inability to score runs. I would argue that extended periods of losing like we saw have a much greater impact on individual performances than we give credit for. Our stats with RISP in clutch situations might be a reflection of of this fact. Particularly during the first long losing streak, when we couldnt score at all (4 game sweep in SD), I think a couple of big at-bats by a player of DLee's caliber could have made for a 4-3 streak rather than a losing streak of 7 or more games. That is the kind of thing that puts pressure on players like Pierre and ARam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is anything in VORP that takes this into account. The reason I bring this up is looking at what it would take to make a 66 win team into a 90+ win team. And I would offer 97-98, 00-01 and 02-03 as examples. I dont think we added the kind of VORP (or win shares) that added 20+ wins in those off-seasons. Similarly, I think having DLee would in fact have made this a 75-80 win team (9-14 games better), because we would not have suffered the types of losing streaks we saw. I'm putting this out there as more of a question to the stat-masters than an outright claim. But for those who, like myself, have used multi-variate regressions to understand seemingly non-quantifiable data, this seems like a case of lacking the right variables in a statistical measure. Flame away!

7 IP, 2 ER, 7K and just 2 BB. But nobody has posted anything about this start? I dont remember a stretch of this kind of consistency out of any starter since Prior in the 2nd half of 2003. I'm not saying it's the same thing, but with each start since his recent callup, he is making a case for himself as one of the best pitchers in the NL this second half. I know the enormity of this team's failure this year, but there are still things to be excited about. Am I alone in this? Or have I missed a thread or responses to tonight's start? Does anyone have stats on where he ranks across all of baseball starters in ERA since the allstar break?