lumafia

Rob Dibble just called Gorz a [expletive].

His slugging has improved every year, which tells me that he has started to figure things out, and is better than his career .413 slugging in MLB. His .456 is good for 3rd on the current team among regulars, and would be good enough next year to be in the top 5 on the team. Not only that, but he is one of a few guys on the team over the last 3 years who consistently hits well with men on base. Just because getting on base is a stength, doesn't mean you automatically are providing the best production for your team by hitting in the leadoff spot. I don't think he would be out of place there, but I do "think" he would be more comfortable down in the order and would be more valuable to his team based on his slugging and success with men on base (.842 OPS) and runners in scoring position (.865 OPS).

In fairness what players "should" do and what they do "do" aren't always the same thing. Soriano should layoff breaking balls that are low and outside. I bet he'd agree in a second - doesn't mean he's gonna do it. By the same logic Latroy Hawkins should be approaching HOF save totals. Approach isn't the same thing as reaction/execution. No one strikes out on a huge hack when they meant to shorten their swing. That was initially the point I was trying to make, though it is a difficult point to defend, as finding statistics to support it is virtually impossible. My thought is that Fukudome would be more comfortable, and productive, lower in the order because that is where he has hit his entire career. That career includes the 9 years he played in Japan, where he was always ranked among the top 5 in slugging. While some would argue, based on lack of statistical evidence, that a player does not change his approach because he is hitting leadoff, while I would argue, based on experience, that he does. I've never played on a college or professional team where a hitter in the leadoff spot wasn't trying to see alot of pitches and just get on base. Vastly different to the approach of a "middle-of-the-order" hitter who is trying to drive the ball. I've played baseball at high levels and have hit almost everywhere in the order during that time, and I can tell you that the only time I changed my approach was when I was asked to hit leadoff. It is difficult to find an example of a player who has spent his career in the middle of the lineup and made a shift to the leadoff spot, thus making it impossible to statistically support my argument. I've looked, and it's not there. So basically, it becomes my opinion based on my experience. I'm a big proponent of using statistics in determing a player's value to his team, and it drives me crazy to see my favorite team spend so many years ignoring it. However, statistics will never tell the entire story. Experience and observation is a big part of the equation. So here it is... My opinion is that Kosuke Fukudome, who had spent his entire professional career having success hitting in the middle of the order with good slugging %'s, would not be as valuable to the team in the leadoff spot. His slugging numbers would be more valuable to the team further down in the lineup with increased chances with men on base, and he would not be as likely to change the approach that has worked so well for him throughout his entire professional career.

How can you honestly think you make a lick of sense here? So, what is your thinking here? That the sample size is too small upon which to draw such conclusions? Is it that you think his reasonably high OBP is the only thing that gives him value? My thinking is it's stupid to breakdown players' production based on spot in batting order and then use that number to determine where he should hit. So you assume that a hitter doesn't change his approach based on his spot in the order?

How can you honestly think you make a lick of sense here? So, what is your thinking here? That the sample size is too small upon which to draw such conclusions? Is it that you think his reasonably high OBP is the only thing that gives him value?

That's nonsense. Why can't he hit leadoff? There's even less of a sample to go on than the BS that people used to try and claim Soriano could only hit leadoff. His value is tied to his OBP and that's quite valuable at the top of the order. Wow. Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bottle this morning. No, I just find your reasoning absurd. So why should he hit leadoff? Because he takes alot of pitches and knows how to take a walk? If that's the case, let's put Dunn in the leadoff spot when we sign him. No...wait, let's put Geo there.

Yeah, but I think those 3 guys are ranked in the top 5 in "grit".

That's nonsense. Why can't he hit leadoff? There's even less of a sample to go on than the BS that people used to try and claim Soriano could only hit leadoff. His value is tied to his OBP and that's quite valuable at the top of the order. Wow. Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bottle this morning. Since all of this is theoretical anyway, I'm just saying I wouldn't hit him leadoff. He hits well with men on base, and he will get more opportunities to do that further down in the order. This team has sucked at hitting with men on base for 2 years. Fukudome has improved his slugging every year, and his .456 slugging this year is good enough for the 25th best slugging % among OF in all of baseball. I just don't think that putting him in the leadoff spot is the best use of his talent. He has had more AB's out of the leadoff spot than any other spot in the order, and he hasn't had as much success there as he has had in other spots.

That doesn't make it difficult to find him the right spot. He should be 2, and Castro should not. There's also no reason he can't bat leadoff. I didn't say he wouldn't be ideal at 2, I said the Cubs wouldn't put him there. Last time I checked, they didn't let me make out the lineups, and I have to base my opinions on the fact that they are going to make bad decisions. Except for the fact that he hasn't been as good there as he has in other spots in the order. While his .364 OBP means he's doing a good job of not making outs, he does a better job of not making outs out of the 3, 5 and 6 spots, while slugging better.

Kosuke career in leadoff spot: .243/.364/.380/.744. OPS is a little low, but mainly because he hasn't slugged at all in the leadoff spot. There's little wrong with that OBP, however, and that's the most important thing for a guy hitting leadoff. What stats reflect that he shouldn't be a leadoff hitter? I would bet it's his AVG and SB. I didn't say he sucked in the leadoff spot, he just can't hit as well there. He has more value lower in the order. As I said, he is ideal for the #2 spot, but the Cubs will not hit him there. He has been better in the 2, 3 and 5 spots in the order.

If Kosuke continues his current pace, he will have tremendous value during the offseason. Personally, I'd rather just keep him in RF and let him stay there all year. However, that money would go a long way towards adding pitching. He has improved every year, and if you project his numbers this year over 550 AB's, he would finish 2010 with 23 HRs, 71 RBI and almost 100 walks. His .835 OPS would rank him 8th among qualified RF's. Not only that, but he is killing lefties this year. The other problem with Kosuke (the other being his contract) is that it is difficult to find him an appropriate spot in the order on this team. Ideally, you would want him in the 2-hole, but the Cubs are going to want Castro in that spot. The 5-spot is another good place for him, but there is no chance the Cubs move Soriano out of that spot. Anywhere between 6 and 8 would be fine, but he hasn't been as good lower in the order. He is not a lead-off guy, and his stats reflect that. The Cubs tried to put a square peg in a round hole by putting him in the leadoff spot. He was a middle-of-the-order type hitter in Japan, and he still is in the MLB. He is at his best with men on base, and is more comfortable somewhere between 2 and 6. Kosuke could be sold to the right team as long as Hendry is willing to swallow his pride and pick up some of the contract. Teams like the Angels, Red Sox, Dodgers, Mariners and Tigers will have significant holes in their OF. With the Cubs willing to pick up some of Kosuke's contract, it would be a no-brainer for some of these teams to come get him. It's going to be a matter of how good Hendry is at selling Kosuke. If he isn't traded by next year, it simply means Hendry didn't want him traded, or that Hendry is willing to accept that he made another contract mistake and didn't want to pick up some of what is owed to Kosuke for 2011.

So they say he's the second worst .300 hitter this year, then admit that it's his fielding that's dragging his WAR down. So he's not really the 2nd worst hitting .300 hitter? Which, considering the mention his fielding too, means Young isn't the worst hitting .300 hitter? Did I read that right? I'm guessing it's worst overall player who happens to hit .300. It's like trying to figure out which Miss Universe contestant is the ugliest. Pretty worthless. Starlin Castro has a .360 OBP, which means he's doing a pretty good job of not making outs.

I guess one of my biggest questions with Colvin is whether or not he is sacrificing the "shortened" swing approach, and just swinging all out on his swings. The Florida State baseball team implemented a similar philosophy during the late-90's to the mid-00's. They called it "The Perfect Swing" approach. I don't think it was highly publicized, but I was friends with several of their players and they explained the approach. It's pretty simple really. Anybody who has ever played baseball knows that there will be times where you are completely fooled, and there are times where you alter your swing slightly to try and reach a pitch that isn't within range of your "normal" swing. Typically, this swing is results in just making contact, and there really isn't much "value" in that contact. Basically, you are just trying to put the ball in play. Using "The Perfect Swing" approach, you basically force yourself to take the same full swing every time, regardless of where the pitch is. The thought process is that even though you will look horrible on some of the pitches you swing and miss, you will destroy any pitch that is thrown in the hitting zone that you do hit. The whole idea is to maximize the effect of those balls that you are able to hit. The assumption was that you don't have as many weak pop-ups, slow rollers, jam shots, etc., and more XBHs. One sacrifice you will make however, is that you will strike out more. It's possible that this is Colvin's approach. For a guy with his frame, he sure is hitting some monster homeruns.

Wait....there's a difference? #-o

No NL rookie has ever won a batting title....so, yes.

If Colvin is able to maintain his current production, which is the big question, than he is worth it based on the money he is currently making. He's obviously not worth what Soriano is making, nobody is.

What's my assumption? The logic in passing on Dunn is that I'm hesitant to give a four year, big money contract to a guy who will be 32 before we likely will be competitive again. I was a huge Dunn supporter 2 years ago when we signed Milton Bradley, but I don't know that potentially overpaying for Dunn now would make a lot of sense when there very possibly could be better options available a year later, when we'll actually (from my point of view) be competitive again. Replacing Theriot with DeWitt and Lee with Dunn would go a long way to making us more competitive next year. If we add Dunn ($12 mil per), and the Cubs payroll stays where it is ($144 mil), that still gives us $27 mil to make improvement to the team. They will have room to make improvements.

The older I get, the less I care about who is, or is not, voted into the Hall of Fame. They seem a little too self-righteous and arrogant for me.

It just doesn't make sense to wait for Gonzalez. You would pass on a .900+ OPS LH hitting 31-year old 1B who is going to hit 35-40 HRs and drive in 85-100 runs for 4-year/50 million for a chance to wait and see if you can sign a .900+ OPS 29-year old 1B who is going to hit 30-35 HRs and drive in 85-100 runs for 5-6 years/75-90 million. I can understand rolling the dice on Fielder, but there isn't a huge difference in what you get from Gonzalez versus what you get from Dunn.

That's a definite concern, but will Dunn be good for 4 more years? Or would signing Dunn leave us with crappy production at first base after 2012 anyway? Also, Nick Swisher is a free agent along with Gonzalez and Fielder according to Cot's. He wouldn't be ideal, but would be an ok fallback option if we miss out on both big FAs. There are other things to consider other than who is available. Such as, what big market teams have the payroll flexibility and the need. I don't know how hung up Fielder would be on playing the field, but my guess is that the Yankees are going to roll out a pretty fat contract to get him to DH in the new Yankee Stadium. The Dodgers are going to have a ton of room for contracts for 2012. They only have $12 million committed compared to the $62 mil the Cubs have committed for 2012. The Dodgers will probably be able to put several big pieces in place along with offering Gonzalez the option of staying on the West Coast. These things may not be an issue, but the competition is going to be pretty heavy in 2012 for their services.

Would Dunn be the first guy to hit one on a rooftop above Sheffield in a game?

Hendry has always wanted Dunn, he will be under pressure to win next year and it would be unwise to hold out for Gonzalez, Fielder or Pujols with no guarantee of signing any of them. I think we would all prefer either Gonzalez, Fielder or Pujols over Dunn, but it's a matter of risk. You could easily walk into 2012 with none of the above. A bird in a hand is worth 2 in the bush. Sign Dunn if you can.

Uh oh. I'm sure this is wrong. I'm not sure why, but I'm sure the next 5 people to reply will tell me. Infield practice a lost art? I always get to the ballparks early and I always see guys taking grounders. Maybe they are referring to the pre-game infield/outfield. I haven't seen that in a while.

I never said he mechanics were perfect. I even took the time to point out at least a couple of mechanical flaws in my original post. I agree that there are some issues. My original post was designed to point out that his biggest problems don't appear to be mechanical. It was my hope that posting the details about my observations would limit the amount of time I would need defending a comment as simple as "His problems don't appear to be mechanical". Apparently, that wasn't the case. I should have known better.

What evidence do you have to support your claim? He looks pretty doing poorly? Why is that better than looking awkward doing well? His fatal flaw, high strikeouts with no walking, has proven to be a very difficult hurdle for hitters to overcome. To which claim are your referring? That his swing is mechanically sound? I thought I explained that in my original post. claim: an assertion of something as a fact observation: an act or instance of noticing or perceiving. Hitters don't look awkward and do well. A hitter can look awkward prior to the swing, but in order for a hitter to have prolonged success at the ML level, they HAVE to be mechanically sound from the moment there hands fire to the point of contact. Whatever happens prior to the load and after contact, is irrelevant. Your claim that he has less to overcome than hitters who are less mechanically sound. He has a lot to overcome, not as much as some raw single A shmoe, but that's kind of pointless. Again, something I explained in a previous post. It is based on the time it takes for a pitch to get to the hitting zone out of a pitcher's hands. There is a tiny amount of time for a hitter to decide the velocity, location and movement of that pitch, and the longer it takes a hitter to get the barrel of the bat to the ball, the less time the hitter has to decide whether or not to swing, and where to swing. It is easier to learn what pitchers throw in certain counts, what a team is trying to do to get you out, what pitchers throw in certain situations, what pitches they are having sucess with in that particular game, what pitches you have struggled with during the game, what pitches you have struggled with in your career, etc. etc., than it is to change something that you have been doing for 10 or 12 years. Hitters succumb to something called "muscle memory" throughout the course of their lives. This can either be a tremendous weapon, or the ultimate villain for a hitter. Muscle memory is when a movement is repeated over a long period of time, the muscles will actually store that motion where the action can be recreated without conscious effort. Some refer to it as motor memory, motor learning, etc. It is quite difficult to change this memory once the body has been doing it for an extended period of time. The better the mechanics, the better the muscle memory. There is less to "undo". If a hitter is having to think about all of the situations pertaining to the given pitch in a given at-bat, along with having to "consciously" swing, they are going to fail miserably based on the limited amount of time the brain has to send all of those signals to all of those different muscles.