CubfaninCA

Way to kill the thread. ;)

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". 100 years of baseball is the proof. Hairston is not his equal even when throwing out reality and playing fantasy baseball. Pierre's ability to steal bases far surpasses Hairston. Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years. You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together? Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention. Just my groundbreaking work on Furcal and Giles. :) As I've said a few times, I'll go w/ the cw. Pitchers, hitters and managers may know a little something.

The bolded ones also happen to have pretty dismal offenses. And Anaheim didn't have the pitching to maintain, and the Sox and Astros got stellar pitching performances in the postseason that allowed them to overcome their offenses. You can get by with marginal OBP, but why would you want to if you have a choice? What other better choices are there though? There isn't a long list of stellar leadoff men around. Just like there aren't a bunch of great right fielders around. I don't see how .355 is marginal either. How about looking at the top offenses this year like Boston and the Yankees who scored the most runs. What do they have in common? They both have very high OBP, the 2 highest in the Majors. They also have the 2 biggest budgets in baseball, which pays for really good hitters, and Damon and JetAh are fast.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". 100 years of baseball is the proof. Hairston is not his equal even when throwing out reality and playing fantasy baseball. Pierre's ability to steal bases far surpasses Hairston. Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years. You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together?

The bolded ones also happen to have pretty dismal offenses. And Anaheim didn't have the pitching to maintain, and the Sox and Astros got stellar pitching performances in the postseason that allowed them to overcome their offenses. You can get by with marginal OBP, but why would you want to if you have a choice? What other better choices are there though? There isn't a long list of stellar leadoff men around. Just like there aren't a bunch of great right fielders around. I don't see how .355 is marginal either.

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too. I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility. Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...? I was just giving an example of baseball cw working out alright. Same goes for Furcal and Atlanta. The White Sox offense is nothing special, and Posednik doesn't have affect on all 9 hitters in the orders. He's a good sparkplug at the top of the order. He definitely helps them and makes them a better team.

If true, 3 and 30's a bargain. Guess it's difficult for him to leave family behind and SD's a really nice place to live. Cliff Floyd cmon down.

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it? You couldn't tell that my answer's no? Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either. Cmon man. YOu should be able to tell that I was saying that Pierre's a viable option even though his obp over the past 3 years and his career (.350-355) aren't stellar. He's viable cause he's really fast, and he gets on base at a good clip. Anaheim, CWS, Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta have done well w/out stellar obpers.

This is exactly the kind of statement that prevents teams like the Cubs from doing things well. You (and they) trust to conventional baseball wisdom rather than actually presenting any facts to help them out. So baseball managers have been batting speedy guys at the top of the order for 100 years. Show me something - anything - that demonstrates that that was a good idea. Or that that's what led to their success. Human beings were enslaving other human beings for thousands of years. Was that a good idea? People had assumed for an equally long time that the earth was flat. Did that turn out to be true? The point is that just because someone's been doing something for 100 years, it doesn't make is right. Give me some real evidence - and don't just say "look at Furcal and Marcus Giles' stats." Cite those stats, and explain how they support your point. Then maybe people will listen. I'll have to find the thread where I cited them. I'll just take the CW of people who have actually played the game over guys who wish they did. Sorry.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it? You couldn't tell that my answer's no?

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo. So if you believe that, prove it. Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005. I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense. When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point. so, in other words, you have nothing to back up what you were saying. It's ok, I dont think anyone thought you did. So you want me to look up several years of Marlins boxscores and find where someone else batted 2nd instead of Castillo. I'll stand by 100 years of baseball conventional wisdom. Castillo's just an aberration.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". 100 years of baseball is the proof. Hairston is not his equal even when throwing out reality and playing fantasy baseball. Pierre's ability to steal bases far surpasses Hairston.

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo. So if you believe that, prove it. Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005. I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense. When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point.

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo. So if you believe that, prove it. Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005. Also, I put more faith into 100 years of managers putting speed at the top of the order.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance. and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy. He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy. What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre. There's 3 reasons why he wouldn't solve it. 1) He's very unreliable. Huge point. 2) His career obp is .334, not .355. Pierre's has some good years where he actually played the entire season. Has Hairston ever had a good year where he played nearly every game?? 3) He doesn't steal nearly as many bases as Pierre. Add that all up and Pierre >>> Hairston.

No, I actually researched it myself rather than blindly following someone else's thoughts. How about Pierre himself? Hasn't seemed to help Mr. Castillo very much. Reposted from another thread from late July: Pierre hitting #1 2003: .302/.359/.370/.729 (667 PA's) 2004: .336/.382/.422/.804 (632 PA's) 2005: .272/.319/.357/.676 (385 PA's) Luis Castillo hitting #2 2003: .325/.389/.406/.794 (590 PA's) 2004: .285/.372/.332/.704 (488 PA's) 2005: .333/.423/.415/.838 (271 PA's) Their OPS's are almost perfect proportions. When one goes up the other goes down. I'm not saying that at all. People would say that Wood and Hudson are pretty comparable when Wood is healthy, and that's generally true. Why doesn't anyone say the same about Hairston and Pierre? For the nth time I'll ask: Why does no one think Hairston is a good leadoff hitter if he could just stay healthy? It's been said about Nomar, Wood, Prior, etc., but when it comes to someone who's been Pierre's double when healthy, not at all. So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base?? As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

Again, I'm talking rates of production. I posted the numbers already, they've been mirrors for the last 4 years, but if you want to use numbers from 5+ years back to show how dissimilar they've been, go for it. And no, the Pierre distracts pitchers theory has been debunked. It's simply not true. Debunked how so?? Cause Bill James says so?? How many major league fastballs has he swung at? Go look at how Furcal has helped Marcus Giles from 2002 to 2005. Can't see how you can disregard production. You're basically saying that Hairston for Pierre and Kerry Wood for Tim Hudson are good trade proposals. Throw out game's played and their numbers are pretty close.

Nicely done! To compare Hairston to Pierre is ridiculous. Hairston has yet to have even a decent year while playing more than part time. Player A Avg. less than 80 games a year Player B Has avg. 150+ games a year Also, please give your reasoning behind calling Pierre a subpar defensive CF. From Espn scouting report : Hardly sounds like a "subpar" defender. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/pierrju01.shtml That's why Pierre is a subpar defender. The ESPN scouting reports are a joke, and using them Hairston could be considered above average too. Whether or not Hairston gets hurt or not is irrelevant. They have startlingly similar production, yet no one is saying "Hairston would be the leadoff man we're looking for if he could just stay healthy". Disregarding durability is a joke. Also, there's a 20 point difference in their career obp's and Pierre's a much bigger stolen base threat. Yes, he gets thrown out a little more than one wants, but he distracts a pitchers.

Why didn't you list their stats for 2001? Also, Player A gets hurt alot unlike Player B. There's a pretty signifcant difference between the two. I want a little more for Patterson and Hill than just Pierre though. Where's the significant difference? That Hairston is injury prone? The point is that Pierre isn't good, no one's calling for Hairston as the leadoff man we've been searching for, but for some reason people are enamored with Pierre. And I didn't list 2001 for the purposes of showing that they have been similar. The same way I didn't use their numbers from 2000, that favor Hairston in a similar sample size. But if you would like to post them and use the numbers from 5 years ago to prove that Pierre is significantly better than Hairston be my guest. Someone being injured consistently versus someone who isn't is pretty significant. Player A has 8 years a career .334 obp, 102 stolen bases played 644 games Player B has 6 years a career .355 obp 267 stolen bases played 845 games So, what's the difference between Lofton and Pierre? Sign Lofton and keep Hill would be the wisest course of action. Age, but that's about all. I have no problem w/ Lofton in CF. With the rumors of Pierre and Preston Wilson, I wonder if the Cubs want to move Pie to rf in the future?? If so, then Pierre goes up in value, as he'd be a long-term fixture in cf. As for the rumored trade, I'd want something more. Am wondering what's the deal w/ Guillermo Mota. He was an awesome set-up man w/ LA. Did he get hurt this year?

Why didn't you list their stats for 2001? Also, Player A gets hurt alot unlike Player B. There's a pretty signifcant difference between the two. I want a little more for Patterson and Hill than just Pierre though. Where's the significant difference? That Hairston is injury prone? The point is that Pierre isn't good, no one's calling for Hairston as the leadoff man we've been searching for, but for some reason people are enamored with Pierre. And I didn't list 2001 for the purposes of showing that they have been similar. The same way I didn't use their numbers from 2000, that favor Hairston in a similar sample size. But if you would like to post them and use the numbers from 5 years ago to prove that Pierre is significantly better than Hairston be my guest. Someone being injured consistently versus someone who isn't is pretty significant. Player A has 8 years a career .334 obp, 102 stolen bases played 644 games Player B has 6 years a career .355 obp 267 stolen bases played 845 games

Why didn't you list their stats for 2001? Also, Player A gets hurt alot unlike Player B. There's a pretty signifcant difference between the two. I want a little more for Patterson and Hill than just Pierre though.