TheDude

This quote sort of stood out to me. What do we make of this, I wonder? Fans that think in numbers and talent first, as many around here do, might discount or dismiss the value of team chemistry in baseball. But that doesn't mean the players, coaches, GMs, and owners devalue it. That's what you make of it.

Unless Dempster also gets 20 Wins. By my count Dempster has 7 starts remaining, unless Lou closes the season by skipping Marquis the last week or two, in which case I'd put his max number of starts left at 8. It's unlikely to be certain - as Dempster has a 5 W/L differential to make up from Webb. But if Webb goes 2-2-3 in W-L-ND and Dempster goes 6-1-0, then they tie in W/L records for the season. The reason Webb would be the today's-date-Cy-Young is that +14 W/L differential, which smokes Lincecum, Volquez, and Dempster. Traditional Cy Young voting would place that metric ahead of marginal differences in ERA and Ks.

Webb might be the favorite because of Wins, but he is not light years ahead of Dempster as some of you have indicated. And none of Harden, Zambrano, Santana, or Peavy are ahead of Dempster when you're talking 2008 Cy Young. They might be better pitchers on talent or career (or both), but they are not better 2008 candidates for this award right now. It's time for people on this board to acknowledge that Zambrano is not having as good a year as Dempster. Regarding the Webb comparison; Dempster has allowed fewer ER, fewer base runners (Walks + Hits), and has more Strikeouts than Webb. Webb's Innings advantage gives him a minute .07 ERA and .06 WHIP advantage over Dempster. This more or less evens out these stats. So Webb has more Wins and a better W/L differential, Dempster has Ks. Everything else is basically even. Innings won't matter presuming both hit 200, which looks likely. 200 is the magic number for the award. If both pitchers remain constant on Inn/Start, ERA, WHIP, and Ks, but Dempster manages to catch Webb in Wins, there should be no reason why he isn't listed in the top 4 with Webb, Lincecum, and Volquez. Santana is going to have to win every start the rest of the way to put his name in the list. Zambrano is going to have to summon up double-digit Ks every start and Win almost every game to get into the race.

Power arm with delivery and/or consistency issues who may figure it out...that's a Hendry-era pitching prospect for you.

that's not true. Yeah, he also mashes bad breaking balls. I was writing with assumption that any hitter playing everyday in the big leagues can mash a hanging breaking ball for an extra base hit. That's a given. The only pitcher's pitch (meaning non-mistake pitch) Soriano can really do damage on is a fastball.

With Soriano, it is very simple. Just look at his splits on counts (not just this year, but 3-year or any given season). Yes it is true almost all players will have better splits for 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, and 3-1, but Soriano's are more exaggerated than most. Every hitter's count OPS is over 1.0. Every pitcher's count OPS is under .700. Split and full counts all yield below season average OPS. Plan and simple - the dude is a living incarnation of Pedro Cerrano. Murders fastballs and that's it. Any pitcher that falls behind 2-0 or 3-1, might as well just walk him.

Hah, that was my first year watching the team. Ugh. That'll make a guy feel old in a hurry.

Now, that is an interesting tidbit. I woulda never guessed it. Actually, just looked it up myself. He had another double-digit K game 3 starts before he became a Cub. The only other one came in 2003. That's just a reflection of his handling though. He has been an under 100 pitch count guy for his entire career, with a career k/9 just under 9. With a career p/ip of 16.5, he hits 100 pitches at the 6 inning mark. He simply hasn't gone deep enough into games throughout his career to reach 10 strike outs, but the potential has always been there. The same thing would be true of Marmol if he was converted back to a starter. You'd be looking at guy who will only give 5-6 inning before hitting his pitch count limit (albeit premium numbers, like Harden), but he'd also rarely give you that 10k mark.

There is no easy way to pull up numbers for supposed 5th starters on all teams to build a comparison, but Marquis almost certainly holds up in that context. That doesn't mean he is good though. The reason people dislike Marquis is really more of a transfered aggression aimed at Hendry and the typical fan frustration associated with the obsession everyone has with minor leaguers. It's the unwritten rule sports - you root for the young, unproven guys to get a chance and succeed. Hendry signed Marquis at a time when the Cubs had 2-3 unproven minor leaguers or rookies possibly ready to break through into the big leagues full time, if only given a chance. So not only does Marquis represent an opportunity cost (wasted money that could have gone elsewhere), but he also killed the chances of several young players for a couple of years. Add in the fact that he simply struggles to put up league average numbers, and you've got the three-pronged boiler plate for fan frustration.

I don't think you can count the 2004 rotation, if my memory is correct. Wasn't there a running side-bet to see how many games would be played before the 'rotation' actually pitched in order, uninterrupted, once during the season? Wasn't it July before it actually happened? Am I thinking of 2005 instead?

Lee's down year still projects at 22 HR, 37 2B, 90 Runs, 89 RBI, and .833 OPS. That level of production (assuming all others remain constant) puts Lee at 12th in the MLB for 1B in OPS. You say that like it's a good thing. It is a good thing, but not a great thing. Anytime you get above average league production from a position player having an off-year, it's a good thing. No realistic expectations of Lee would have included 2005-like production. An .870 OPS was probably a good expected baseline for Lee for 2008. And there are still at least 15 other starters at first base with worse production so far this year. Lee's production this year is basically a microcosm of the entire team. There isn't an everyday player in the field on this team that anyone would say is a top 10 overall player, MLB-wide. Maybe not top 20. One illustration: do a sort on OPS for all MLB players and the first Cub you hit is Aramis Ramirez at 39th (Soriano has too few ABs to qualify officially). But the team is 2nd in MLB for team OPS, which is .802. 2nd in Runs. 1st in OBP. That's with Ramirez and Lee having down years. Hendry built a strong team without a genuine star in the field. Obviously if you can make the team better, trade Lee and sign Texiera. But the trade would not be a dump or forced move, and it would only happen on Hendry's terms, which are probably going to be too high, even if half the league could use Lee as an upgrade.

They're doing well this year, but if Lou hadn't come around to the fact that OBP is important they'd still be clueless. This is an incredibly arrogant thing to say. Lou Piniella has been in baseball longer than probably 90% of the board has been alive. What on earth makes you believe he "suddenly" came around to OBP this year? Go back and read all the quotes from his press conference when hired. Shock and awe, one of his key points was approach at the plate, with an emphasis on being aggressive as a hitter only when when the baseball is in the strike zone. I think you're much better served saying that the players this year have responded to the coaching approach, with a little help from other players (like Fukudome). It's on the players. Lou isn't having any epiphanies at this stage of his career.

Lee's down year still projects at 22 HR, 37 2B, 90 Runs, 89 RBI, and .833 OPS. That level of production (assuming all others remain constant) puts Lee at 12th in the MLB for 1B in OPS. The emergence of Kevin Youkilis, Adrian Gonzalez and Conor Jackson, plus Detroit's decision to move Cabrera to 1B, has raised the number of +.870 OPS 1B by 4 year. A hot last 50 games could push him up to 25 HR, 100 Runs, 100 RBI, and .860 OPS, but he still falls short of the .870 mark that defines the top 10 1B in 2008. I'm not sure there is any real value in trading your club house leader with that kind of production for a decent upgrade (+ .050-.070 OPS) unless the trade returns an everyday, young big leaguer. I wouldn't make any deal that brought high ceiling prospects that aren't yet ready and could bust. In short, it would have to be a damn good deal and there are few scenarios to envision at this point.

I think Pie's future unfortunately depends on how successful this year's club. If the Cubs win it all, his odds of playing next year go up dramatically. If they get to the playoffs and lose, he likely gets buried in the depth chart in favor of another win-now option as the carrot gets bigger. If they somehow collapse and miss the playoffs, I think Pie's chances go up again as the team likely puts the free money to pitching. Just my guesses.

Yes. Further, if you note that the focus of the inside change-up cluster is on the zone line, it's very unlikely even with contact that the hitter gets the sweet-spot. At the very least you'll get some awkward swings.

Huh? Who has been 'stuck' in the pen with no opportunities to start? The organization has shuffled some guys between starter and pen, but none have irrevocably found themselves stuck in the pen. And don't say Marmol. He isn't stuck. The organization sees his future value as closer and the only chatter about him moving back to starter has been around here. Free the rhetoric!

Wade Davis though? He's only second to Price in their farm right? I saw those names and nearly choked. Relievers won't command starters that young and high.

As long as people don't start to normalize one of the splits without normalizing the other, it really doesn't matter.

Z changes arm slots quite a bit, but there is concern when he is consistently down with it.

I don't know how they handle players who change positions, so I can't be sure. If he keeps a nearly 150 ERA+ this year though, I think it's hard to imagine him not being Type A since he wasn't terrible as a reliever. That was my thinking as well. If hes labled a Type A, Id love to get 2 picks for him, and odds are somebody will want to sign him quick if he hits the market. This has actually been a point of (for lack of better terms) 'anticipated minor controversy' with the FA typing, because they have no prescribed formula to measure guys that shift from either starter to reliever or reliever to starter. It's the type of topic that will fill a writer's blog for a day or a 90 second spot on PTI. The concern is on the side of the departing club getting short-changed because the typing looks at a 3-year spread, with one exceptional year not necessarily swaying the value. For starters there is consideration for number of starts or innings, and for closers the number of saves. A guy like Dempster isn't going to look great in either when considering 3-year averages because he doesn't have 3 years of either, though he certainly looks stellar in just per year averages. But the typing doesn't want to use per year, because you're back to having one excellent year sway the value. Unfortunately for Dempster, his 2006 and 2007 closer numbers are not type A numbers. So the real question is; how much will 2008 starter numbers weigh, despite being 1/3 of the sample, given he will be signed as a starter by whomever picks him up?

Wouldn't that still constitute a foreign substance?

No, it's a bad url at this point. Sometimes happens with online news articles if/when they move them. It may have been a good link at the time it was put up.

Forget that, it would piss off the Red Sox Nation. You can't trade a fan favorite that puts up a .933 OPS outside of the 3-5 spots and puts up consistent quality defense and comes cheaper for longer. It would be lunacy. The replacement player would have to put up at least a 1.0+ OPS to justify the trade numbers-wise - and many fans would still be pissed off.

My first thought before opening the thread was that the Cubs might consider moving Theriot to 2B for Greene at SS, then bouncing DeRosa all around the diamond 4 days a week as people get days off. Not sure if I like the idea or not, but that was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title.