The Other 15

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief. How much do you think it is? Remember, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25 players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 of a season is about a win. I don't know, but that's no big deal because neither do the guys who came up with the formula. It's merely fodder for thought. What I do know (and the spreadsheet whiz's pretend to know better, would agree, if pressed to bank on it) is that I would rather have Ramirez over Freel in as many games as possible. uh, no offense, but...duh No offense taken, because, as you could tell by my post, i think it is a duh to want Aram in as many games as possible over Freel and that any science that says that Freel over 6 weeks is worth only one less win share is flawed.

Oh no, I hope that doesn't happen. The horror, to think that one of these days Marmol will allow runs to score and lose a game. No other reliever has had to deal with that tragedy. I'm sure as soon as it happens, you'll forget how many times his control won innings that eventually led to winning games.

I feel confident that there's a lot of baseball left to play. You looking around the league much? Notice how many teams are having issues with bullpens? Notice how bullpen numbers (individual and team) can fluctuate dramatically early in a season? Still too early to make any definitive statement other than there will be some changes made.

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief. How much do you think it is? Remember, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25 players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 of a season is about a win. I don't know, but that's no big deal because neither do the guys who came up with the formula. It's merely fodder for thought. What I do know (and the spreadsheet whiz's pretend to know better, would agree, if pressed to bank on it) is that I would rather have Ramirez over Freel in as many games as possible.

The reason for there to be more worry about Aramis than the bullpen is because it's far easier to patch together a decent bullpen than it is to find a very productive third baseman. We all expect Bradley, Lee, Soto, etc. to start hitting closer to their career norms, but what if two of those three don't? There's ample reason to believe that Soto and Lee won't get back to what we expected and without Aramis, the offense isn't nearly as imposing as it once was. Yeah, it's real easy to patch together a good bullpen. That's why there are so many good ones in baseball. The point is, you can bemoan Aramis' loss all you want, but a bad bullpen has been giving away leads even while he was playing. You can't do anything about Aramis, but you can try to address the bullpen. It won't replace Aram, but a bullpen that does the job will make the hurt much smaller.

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief.

Whaaaaaaaa, whaaaaaaaaaa,....(sob, sob), It's 31 games and "we're" already out of first place by 2.5 games!!!!!! Whaaaaaaaa.

His range is good, trouble is that he's a terrible route runner. He occasionally throws out a guy taking an extra base but he doesn't hold guys from taking extra bases, they do it all too frequently on him. If he was very good, he'd be in CF. That lasted what, a week in ST? He's an average LF who makes up for his shortcoming with a good, accurate arm. Perhaps if he came up as an outfielder he would be good, he certainly has the athleticism. If by occasionally, you mean that he's led all LF's in throwing out runners despite not playing full time, then yes, he occasionally throws out a runner. You might be seeing these games where people take extra bases "all the time" and he trows out people "occasionally", but he's been much better than your perception.

Losing Aramis is a big blow. But quite honestly, with or without Aramis, if they cannot find anyone other than Marmol to get people out late in games it will not matter who plays 3B. Even when he's good, Gooz is still giving up runs. Patton has the stuff, but appears ill at ease on the mound. This isn't the time to worry about weather or not Colorado will want him back. If Lou's not going to use him, talented or not, he needs to go. If they're that much into projects, give Stevens a look. Cotts is unreliable for late innings even as a loog. Fox? Well, I suppose it wouldn't be a season without Fox making useless appearances. Just wish it was in a Pirates uniform. Forget Aramis and target a couple of relievers or shake things up if Wells is pitching adequately by the time Z returns and move Marshall to the pen (he gets people out in any role) and keep Wells starting. Something needs to be done. That's the biggest hole on the team, not Aramis. Bradley and Lee will eventually hit close to their averages. Soto and Font should improve from where they are at. The offense should be decent even without Aramis, but who cares if leads can not be protected.

Oh, Matt Murton, where forth art thau? The most beloved .288/.354/.440 hitter on Cubs message boards history.

I really don't think he has done all that much with the progression of the kids they got. I was discussing how they played really well for a good chunk of last season. It's hard to keep that going with a bunch of young players for multiple reasons. Mainly, they don't have many 162-game seasons under their belt and can become streaky because in general they let themselves get too high and too low depending on the current streak they're in. Wouldn't that be the primary objective of a manager who heads a young team? To teach how to handle the highs and lows and life in the bigs in general? The young guys they had have simply not taken the next step. A case can be made that they are all doing OK, but much more than OK was expected from that group a couple of years ago. They didn't need all of them to take that next step, but one or two could have won them the division last year.

The offseason will start looking less like a failure when the main guy they made the moves for starts hitting.

I'm stunned. Boras put together an entire booklet showing how Perez was the best LH starter in baseball. Sort of like when he printed a report (written by him) that proved to the Mets that Beltran was as good as Mickey Mantle.

Yeah, if that's true, its pretty obviously he was roiding. When I first heard the story, I was thinking it would be a JC Romero kinda story, but its becoming pretty clear he was roiding. I dunno... I do have a hard time believing Manny would stand up and fight if he was actually taking it for fertility. "My boys swim in circles" isn't exactly something you want to announce to the world. "I'm a steroid user, so you can black-ball me from the HOF" would be a lot worse message than I need help with my swimmers, no? For Manny? I wont pretend to know what he's thinking when he's acting "normally." I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Ok, I understand that, but still, regardless of his innocence or not, wouldn't the message that he was a steroid user be worse than he needed assistance with his swimmers?

Yeah, if that's true, its pretty obviously he was roiding. When I first heard the story, I was thinking it would be a JC Romero kinda story, but its becoming pretty clear he was roiding. I dunno... I do have a hard time believing Manny would stand up and fight if he was actually taking it for fertility. "My boys swim in circles" isn't exactly something you want to announce to the world. "I'm a steroid user, so you can black-ball me from the HOF" would be a lot worse message than I need help with my swimmers, no?