TheDude

IMO, yes that is unrealistic. Why? Hendry has shown only a limited willingness to gamble defensively. Moving Cedeno to 2B wasn't much of a stretch. Bouncing Hairston Jr. around wasn't very smart or effective. Otherwise, I can only think of him asking Garciaparra to consider LF as the only other non-injury defensive shift he has considered for an everyday player during his tenure. Moreover, Hendry is old-school. Defense up the middle is a priority for him (unless blown away by MVP-esque numbers at one of those positions, such as what Soriano brings at 2B), and I am guessing he would view Jones as a below average CF. Moreover, I believe Hendry has already penciled Pierre in as next year's CF, and quite possibly beyond. It is only my opinion, and I responded because you specifically asked, but taking those three considerations into account, I don't see Hendry even looking at Jones as a CF option in a non-injury replacement scenario.

Hoops, do you really project Theriot as an everyday starter for the Cubs? I, like everyone, love what he has done for the Cubs in limited time this year...but is Theriot the Cubs version of Bo Hart (the 2B guy with the cool name that puts up inflated numbers in limited appearances)?

IMO, yes that is unrealistic.

Vance, I see the Cubs going cheaper on the bench than Wilson and DeRosa and signing Pierre instead. Otherwise I could easily see Hendry pursuing this roster and it is a believable projection. It's not a complete overhaul or blown-up scenario, instead it only requires a small number of transactions concentrated on high-end talent.

I've read from numerous posters that 'Hendry won't go after Soriano' or something to that affect. Can I ask why folks feel this way? Is this just general anti-Hendry sentiment, or with a justifiable line of thinking? I see it this way: -The Cubs have positional needs at either LF or 2B, conveniently the two positions Soriano can play (I didn't say play well defensively). -Hendry has been known to have an interest in Soriano for years. -Hendry is a tools-infatuated GM and Soriano is the poster-boy of toolsy players. -The Cubs have some money to spend. -Signing Soriano to play 2B allows the Cubs to keep and develop Murton, a fan favorite who may not have a position on the team next year. -The Cubs can have enough young talent on the roster to offset another big contract player, if they so choose. Murton, Hill, and Marshall as regulars and likely one or two kids as bullpen pitchers. -Hendry has a reputation for shying away from big contracts. But it is worth noting that reputation applies primarily to pitchers. I understand people have their doubts of Hendry. But from a basic 'fit analysis' of the player, the team, and the GM, I see no reason why Hendry wouldn't be all over Soriano. I should note also this is abstract analysis of the situation, not a personal advocation to go after Soriano.

Murton is a fine young talent and I will root for him wherever he plays, but I do think he goes somewhere else in a trade. Having good young talent is not enough, the team also needs that talent to fit into organizational plan. Just ask a guy like Wily Mo Pena what that's like. The Cubs have two major needs for 2007: top-end starting pitcher and one power bat. That power bat likely comes from a corner outfield slot, if you assume the Cubs have both Ramirez and Lee next year. The lone 'exception option' would be Soriano at 2B. So Murton is unfortunately the odd man out as it is unlikely the team trades Jones or puts Murton in front of Jones on the depth chart. Personally, I would rather see the team deal Murton while his value is higher, than to keep him as a 4th outfielder, unless his playing time as the 4th outfielder (and first pinch-hitter option) yielded at least 400 ABs.

Getting back to the original topic, I sent in a request to the UselessInfo department at ESPN to find out which team in baseball has had the most games where the opponent scored more runs than hits for this season. I also asked them to dig up the record for most such games in a season. If anybody can find the stat, it's those guys.

You might be right, but then HR and walks allowed are accounted for in OPS against right? You would think it would reflect more consistently.

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have. Let me be a bit more clear on my angle, because I feel there is a stronger emphasis on OPS than OBP when correlating Runs scored. When you look at offensive numbers, there is nearly a direct correlation between OPS and Runs Scored. For example, all of the teams in the top 9 for runs scored in the NL are in the top 9 for OPS, and the order only shifts slightly, with teams within 2 in ranking across the board. As expected therefore, the teams with the lowest OPS are also worst in Runs Scored As we would expect, the reverse is true when evaluating the stats from the pitching perspective. The 5 teams in the NL with the lowest OPS against are also the 5 teams that have given up the fewest Runs Scored. There are no anamolies on offense. But there are two teams with anamolies on the pitching side - The Cubs and the Brewers. Each has given up more Runs Scored than the OPS against would suggest. Maybe I am just allowing my optomism for the future to shine through, but it really seems to me that more runs are scoring than the mean would suggest.

I think you are misunderstanding. BAA, OBP, and SLG with RISP is an extremely important statistic in scoring runs. The problem with using the statistic to evaluate players is that its not repeatable. That is, most players who hit great with RISP one year, won't repeat that performance the next year. Thus, there is no sense trying to find players who do well with RISP. When you get your hits is very important in how many runs you score. Because this element involves so much luck, the importance of having more runners on base is even more exaggerated. Teams with fewer baserunners have few opportunities to get lucky - score on errors, etc. Right on. It's not that BA/RISP is unimportant it is that it has little predictive value when judging future performance. The value of any stat is how stable the stat is over time. I wasn't misunderstanding anything. In fact, CubinNY just really hit on my main as-of-yet undeclared point - I started this point with the eventual goal of trying to predict 2007 staff performance. Next year's Cub pitching staff figures to consist of at least 75% of the same guys: Zambrano, Prior, Hill, Marshall, Rusch, Eyre, Howry, and Dempster are likely remaining (feel free to substitute a different rookie for either Hill or Marhsall). That's at least 8 returning guys for an 11 or 12 man staff (based on contract status). So when evaluating this year's results, can we expect the same dramatic difference between hits allowed and runs allowed? Or will other teams consistent "clutch" hitting from this season continue into next season? If you look deeper at the stats, the Cubs pitching numbers against are not good, but don't seem to lead to the runs scored correlation. They're 8th in the NL in total bases allowed, 9th in SLG and OPS against, and 13th in OBP against... How does that add up 15th in Runs allowed? Seems to me that teams have scored about 30 more runs this year than the cumulative spread of numbers would suggest.

Right, exactly. So the most frequent occurance of basehits, especially HR, are when men are on base. In some cases, like last night, all the opponent's runs are scored on the HR, despite only 4 hits in the game. That's why I throw out the notion of snake-bitten - everyone always says around here that RISP average is a meaningless stat. If it is meaningless, or of low value, can we chalk up this year's performance in the Runs given-up category as partially due to bad luck (because of an opponent's inflated RISP average)? See what I'm getting at? I want to know if the Cubs pitching staff is truly that bad, or if they have actually been bad with bad luck as well.

That much is clear and nobody will dispute that. But if you continue to examine last night's game, Miller gave up one hit and 2 runs. It has to be a combination of excessive walks and lots of HR given-up. I know I have seen both Zambrano and Marhsall this year, and Wood for several years, leave the game having given up more runs than hits, sometimes with only 2 walks in 6 innings. It's probably just perception, but it sure seems like that one hit only ever comes after a walk, and not with the bases empty.

Yesterday's game was yet another game ths year where the Cubs gave up more runs than hits out of the pitching staff. Maybe my perception exagerrates the rate this occurs, but it seems to happen far more than should. Does anybody know of a stat source that could tell me without browsing 140 boxscores, how many games the Cubs pitching staff has given-up fewer hits than runs? Or equal numbers of hits and runs? Is there any value in evualting the ratio of hits-to-runs for the pitching staff, and comparing that to the league average? The idea would be to figure if the Cubs simply get snake-bitten often with some bad luck, or figure out if there is some deeper reason for opponent's ability to conistently put together all their hits in one or two innings against the Cubs.

Hendry's attraction to toolsy players has nothing to do with this discussion of Bynum. This argument doesn't have to get trotted into every discussion. As was pointed out, Bynum's second half has been solid. I didn't see the issue with his start last night. Both he and Theriot have been hot of late. I will however agree with Vance that Dusty does play favorites. And his favorites have a clear pattern - they put the ball into play (few walks or strikeouts) and ability to run. Power, plate discipline, and even performance (recent or career) don't seem to carry nearly the weight of the two factors above them. I think it is a legitimate question to ask Dusty though, regarding his questionable pattern of 'leash length' on young players. I don't believe there is a racial issue regarding veteran players and playing time, but the track record on younger players does raise an eyebrow. Perhaps it is coincidence, and I don't think conclusions could be drawn without looking at Dusty's entire managerial career in this respect.

Exhibit 358,446,991 in the case of "The Chicago Cubs are the worst organization in professional sports". That's some kind of parrot you got there. Should we just place all your posts under the dead horse file? All I read here is that Zambrano wants to pitch. Imagine that, a fiercely competitive guy wants to rush back from injury and play. That describes only about 99% of the competitive athletes in the world. I have no clue how that reflects on the Cubs in any way whatsoever.

A FREAKIN MEN! Probably the best Cubs article I have ever read. While the OBP issue is real, I think hendry has already addressed the Wood/Prior concern. I have heard/read him note several times this season that he takes responsibility for not proprely stacking the starting rotation and that he needs reliability in the rotation. I expect him to enter 2007 with 8 viable starters ready to go, one of which will be a long man (probably Rusch, ugh) and the other two in AAA waiting for an injury replacement call-up.

What's considered functioning to some may not be accpetable to others. Novoa is terrible, and the number of appearences he's made is a terrible way to judge him as a pitcher. Nobody knows why Novoa has been trotted out there on such a regular basis, but we certainly know it's not because he's good. Why is Novoa terrible? Because he isn't a stud? Novoa's numbers are better than the average MLB relief pitcher. That makes him a servicable, better-than-average middle reliever. There's nothing wrong with having a guy like that in the bullpen.

The point is that Dempster has contributed very very little this year, despite having 24 saves. I'll also add that even successful closers are overvalued and overpaid, and when closers are less than totally successful they are absolutely hideous in terms of bang for the buck. How many closers on a .400 team do? Seriously. Mike Gonzalez is a talented young arm who gets little attention and has little value in Pittsburg, but that doesn't mean he isn't worth keeping in the closers role. Closers only have value on winning teams anyway, which is why I don't understand the thread. It seems to me you're beating up on a guy just because his team has been terrible.

For this observation to have any relevance whatsoever, you have to list the baseline value, such as an NL or MLB 1-run save percentage. Without that, how do we know Dempster doesn't actually have more 1-run saves than the league average? I don't get the point of this thread.

Ryan Howard is going to make the 50 HR mark matter again, a mark worthy of awe.

Huh?

That won't get us very far either if we're running the Les Walronds of the world out there because all our good pitchers are DL'd from over use. What? How do you know that every pitcher that has seen the DL in the Dusty era has a root cause of "overuse"? That's just wild and inaccurate speculation. I recognize you can show pitcher overuse through study, but you have to back it up by showing a direct correlation to overuse and injury. Folks can make a claim that something has to be amiss in the organizational pitching approach (because of the high rate of injuries) and I would agree, but there are numerous other factors too consider. Overuse might account for a small fraction of injuries in the grand sceme of the Dusty era, but I'd argue issues with strength and conditioning and mechanics are more likely and more of concern. Additionally, the organization aggressively seeks high stuff pitchers with power, little control, and raw talent (which often means poor mechanics). Pitchers like this are bound to break-down and when you stock your system with them, what you see is what you get.

Yes they were. Three weeks ago they were the favorite in the East. Injuries change everything in a strech-run when it happens to a team's leader in either spirit or production.

I hope Zambrano does pull it out. I don't care if it costs more in the future, he deserves to be recognized despite years of Wood and Prior headlines. On a personal note, having all three of Zambrano, Webb, and Carpenter on my fantasy team makes me smile.

I really got on some people for writing off Williams before the season. I often said he was being underated by a lot of people here. Oops... That reminds me of all the arguments I had with people trying to tell me Williams was going to be better than Maddux this season. As for the topic, I'm not really excited about the call-ups. We've seen so many kids this season already, it's a bit anti-climatic.