dew1679666265

The leadoff hitter doesn't control the rest of the team, good or bad. No, but a leadoff hitter should be a very consistent, "heads up" kind of hitter. Getting the guys on deck more live pitches at the beginning of the game , spraying the ball and OBP are pretty useful features for a leadoff man. Those are good features, but those shouldn't be what you build your lineup around. You should put your best hitters at the top of the lineup so that they get the most at bats. Showing teammates live pitches is only useful one time a game - you shouldn't build your lineup around one at bat a game. When Soriano is going good, he slugs in the mid .500s. I want him to get as many at bats as possible in those situations. Thus, I want him at the top of the order - and the leadoff spot is fine with me. If the other players don't see as many live pitches, but Soriano leads off the game with a double or home run, I'm perfectly happy with that tradeoff.

Id have to assume that Bradley would be 6th, so its at least worth it to see if batting between Ramirez and Bradley could be beneficial to Soriano. Bradley could well bat 2nd. I'd rather have him bat 2nd than 6th. He's putting up a decent OBP. I agree.

Id have to assume that Bradley would be 6th, so its at least worth it to see if batting between Ramirez and Bradley could be beneficial to Soriano. Bradley could well bat 2nd.

There we go. Pujols in 2011! The thing about this team is that there are huge contracts at nearly every position ($10+ million). You can build a good to very good team with fewer huge contracts than that. That's going to have to be the route we take to contend in 2011 and 2012. Along with, of course, hoping a player or two from the farm pans out well.

I can understand that, I just took your original post as another of the "we're not going to contend for the next 10 years because of Hendry" posts. There are always good bargains out there. We'll just have to look a bit harder for the next 2-3 years, make fewer mega signings and develop prospects well.

Which underscores the point that they will need a whole lot of good players between now and then to stay contenders, and they aren't coming from the farm system more than likely. Why not? The farm system isn't great, but it's improving. Vitters could fill Aramis' spot by then, Jackson could be up in the rotation and Wells could still be there as well. If we can find a couple more guys to give us decent production at a cheap rate then we could fill around them with larger contracts and have a pretty good team. Again, it would take being smart and cost effective, but it's perfectly reasonable to think we could be a good team by then. And that's assuming no trades occur between now and then and assuming that the payroll doesn't increase at all.

In 2011 we have $96 million committed and in 2012 we have $54 million committed. Assuming payroll doesn't plummet between now and then we will have in the area of $40-$80 million to spend in those two seasons as of right now - minus, of course, arbitration guys. I see no reason why we can't be a contender those two years. 2010 will be a tough salary year, but after that we'll have some flexibility again. By 2012, here's the ages of your key players: Soto 29 Lee 36 Soriano 36 Fukudome 35 Ramirez 34 Lilly 36 Dempster 35 Zambrano 31 I'd be surprised if more than about 2 of those guys are still above-average players at that point. Even $80 million won't go very far if they have that many needs. That's not to say they can't remain contenders. But they will need to make very few mistakes and have a lot of things go right between now and then. Without looking it up, I don't think Lee, Fukudome, Lilly, or Dempster will be under contract in 2012 with the Cubs Of the group he listed, only Z, Soto, Dempster and Soriano will be.

In 2011 we have $96 million committed and in 2012 we have $54 million committed. Assuming payroll doesn't plummet between now and then we will have in the area of $40-$80 million to spend in those two seasons as of right now - minus, of course, arbitration guys. I see no reason why we can't be a contender those two years. 2010 will be a tough salary year, but after that we'll have some flexibility again. By 2012, here's the ages of your key players: Soto 29 Lee 36 Soriano 36 Fukudome 35 Ramirez 34 Lilly 36 Dempster 35 Zambrano 31 I'd be surprised if more than about 2 of those guys are still above-average players at that point. Even $80 million won't go very far if they have that many needs. That's not to say they can't remain contenders. But they will need to make very few mistakes and have a lot of things go right between now and then. Out of that group only Z, Soto, Dempster and Soriano are under contract for 2012. Soto and Z should still be productive at that point, Vitters may well be ML ready by then and we have good starting pitchers in the minors who could be ready and productive by then (Jay Jackson, Chris Carpenter, Wells if he's for real, etc). Obviously some of those guys may not pan out and we'll have to be cost effective in some areas with that many needs, but it's certainly very much in the realm of possibility that we could be contenders in 2011 and 2012. Even 2010 isn't completely unrealistic.

In 2011 we have $96 million committed and in 2012 we have $54 million committed. Assuming payroll doesn't plummet between now and then we will have in the area of $40-$80 million to spend in those two seasons as of right now - minus, of course, arbitration guys. I see no reason why we can't be a contender those two years. 2010 will be a tough salary year, but after that we'll have some flexibility again.

Right. Get your most consistent hitters at the top. That is not Soriano. He's way too streaky to be batting in that spot, with too low of an OBP. There's also the importance of making a starting pitcher work a bit more, etc. That's not Soriano either. The idea is to get your best hitters at the top of the lineup. Throughout the season that is Soriano. You can't then completely reorganize your lineup for the playoffs just because you have 100 ABs that say a certain player isn't good in them. Soriano has had good playoff series before - he can have them again. I don't think it's any coincidence that the Cubs had the best post season success with a traditional leadoff hitter in 2003(of course Wood and Prior were the main reason). Lofton was someone who had smart at bats, hitting the ball to all fields. I think a consistent bat is important for the 1 hole, and in the playoffs when you are in these 1 run deathmatches, having someone with a brain getting the most at bats is a good thing. Soriano plays dumb baseball, and he sets that meme from the very beginning of every Cubs game. Lofton had a .681 and .737 OPS in the two series in 2003. Those aren't awful numbers, but they're also not good enough to give him credit for us winning those series. Lofton also has a career .667 OPS in the postseason and a .315 OBP. He's been better than Soriano, but he hasn't been a particularly good playoff performer. The Cubs won in 2003 because they had fantastic pitching and great hitting throughout the lineup.

The biggest problem with using postseason ABs to try to predict anything is that the overall numbers can change so easily. I've mentioned before that Soriano, by having 10-15 good at bats in the postseason, could raise his overall numbers by 20-30 points. That's quite an improvement from a tiny number of at bats. Also, when you say that certain players (like Soriano) can't handle postseason pressure and can't hit good pitching, how do you explain that Soriano has had an 1.126 OPS in a postseason series (ALCS) and a .789 OPS in another postseason series (ALDS)? A couple more postseason series like that and he could have nearly respectable numbers for his postseason career. Numbers vary way too much over 100 ABs to use them as any kind of an indicator. He's not wasted at the top of the order (in any of the top 3-4 spots) if he slugs anything like he does in the regular season.

OBP is not the only number of importance for a leadoff hitter, though. It's very important, but a guy batting in the first spot in the lineup only leads off an inning maybe a couple times a game - max. The idea is to get your best hitters as high in the lineup as is possible. The difference in number of at bats over the course of a season between the leadoff hitter and the #6 hitter, for instance, is in the hundreds of ABs. Lineup construction should be more about getting your best hitters as high in the lineup as possible because that is going to benefit you over the course of entire games. When Soriano is doing well, I wouldn't be opposed to moving him down a bit in the lineup (no lower than top 3-4 spots, though). But, we would have to replace him with someone who is good enough to make good use of those extra 100-150 ABs over the course of a season. Not just someone who fits the traditional idea of a leadoff hitter - because he's only going to be in that position a couple times a game tops. Leading off a game with a home run is not a bad thing and if a team has even decent hitters in the 7-8 spots in the lineup, that leadoff hitter with power is going to bat with men on base nearly as often as he leads off a game.

It doesn't matter what your musical tastes are. Elvis is much more of a cult icon than MJ. Think of all the merchandise you see that has Elvis on it, etc. He also had a bigger fanbase as well because of the different genre that he recorded under. I'd have to think that Elvis also had more of an influential impact on music. All of the early rock bands like The Beatles, Stones, etc were influenced by his stardom. There's a famous story that John Lennon always told about going to see an Elvis movie when he was 14 or 15 and going "oh my god...THAT would be a good job!" and thus getting into music hard and heavy because of Elvis. My choice is not to denigrate MJ's impact at all, because I think he was massively influential and certainly is among the biggest superstars in modern music history, right alongside Elvis and The Beatles. Personally, I'm not an Elvis fan and have only ever owned his greatest hits, however, I just think the cultural impact that Elvis had on the country is hard to even come close to measuring. I pretty much completely agree with you here.

Wells: .731 OPS, .264 EqA Rasmus: .823 OPS, .286 EqA I don't think Rasmus alone would be enough for Halladay, but Rasmus is probably as good (or close to it) as Wells is right now. Rasmus has played less than half a year of big league baseball. Rasmus is only 22 and is outperforming Wells at the big league level. Wells has a proven track record of inconsistency throughout his career. If you're talking about good Vernon Wells, then no, Rasmsus isn't as good as him right now. But right now we have the Vernon Wells who is OPSing .731 and is a negative defensively. Rasmus is better than that Vernon Wells right now.

Wells: .731 OPS, .264 EqA Rasmus: .823 OPS, .286 EqA I don't think Rasmus alone would be enough for Halladay, but Rasmus is probably as good (or close to it) as Wells is right now.

The only reason they're considering trading Halladay is because they might not be able to afford him due to Wells' contract. I don't see the two being moved together (or the acquiring team being able to afford both - save for the Yankees and Red Sox).

I wouldn't want Polanco at this point. He's not getting on base (.313 OBP) and he's not slugging at all (.397) and he's 33 - meaning he may not rebound. fair enough, but hes a FA next year, and only making 4.6 mil this year, leaving about 2.3 left over so if we could get him for cheap, would you give him a shot? Id just assume go after a new 2B nex season, so for now, Id accept a slight upgrade over what we have now considering if/when someone like Sanchez or Uggla become available, we probably wont be able to afford them. No, I wouldn't give up anything for Polanco. The likelihood is that he won't be better than Fontenot alone and he's even less likely to be as good as a Fontenot/Baker platoon. The only way I want a trade for a second baseman is if he's a clear upgrade - a player like Freddy Sanchez.

2009: $5 million, 2010: $9 million, 2011: $12 million. Is he worth keeping with all those jumps in pay? I suppose one could say Hendry is a fool for spreading the money like that, but that's another story. If we cut Bradley, we still have to pay him. The only way to get out from under his salary would be to trade him and the acquiring team to pick up his entire contract.

I went with Elvis as well. The fact that he's comparable to Michael Jackson even though Elvis never lived through the massive technology age we have today is a sign of his massive stardom. Like NC, though, my musical tastes may be biasing my opinion some.

Four of our starting eight position players also have OBPs below .350. That probably has as much or more of an impact than not hitting enough homers. The offense just hasn't been good this year - it's not because of a reliance on homers (which they don't have anyway). They are fourth in number of home runs hit this year and 12th in OBP in the National League. Last year they were fifth in homers in the NL and 1st in OBP. Getting on base is the key.

Yeah, the likelihood of him still being effective is low, but a league minimum deal without giving up prospects couldn't hurt. Give him some time in the minors and see if he can work things out a bit.

I wouldn't want Polanco at this point. He's not getting on base (.313 OBP) and he's not slugging at all (.397) and he's 33 - meaning he may not rebound.

The June numbers look a lot better, but he still walked 6 and struck out only 3. I want to see that ratio improve. I wouldn't be against signing him and giving him a chance, though.

RHB against in his career: .236/.327/.343/.670 LHB against in his career: .179/.285/.273/.558 What's wrong with using him as a loogy? I was mostly taking a jab at Lou's use of Marshall; obviously, I didn't bother to look at Ryan's splits. And the difference in Ryan's numbers don't scream "use only vs. lefties"; not enough of a differential, IMO.-- Carlos Marmol career according to http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/player_splits?player_id=7789: vs righties: .172/.293/.273/.566 vs lefties: .204/.332/.407/.739 I'd say there's just as much of an argument that Marmol should only face righties as saying that Ryan should be a a loogy....and I don't see many people saying that. I agree that Ryan at his best should be a closer and not a loogy. But, if we were to sign him now, it'd probably be best to use him as a loogy to put him in the best situations to recover his confidence in his stuff and give him the best chance to succeed.

No, the argument comes down to what stats you use to evaluate a player. Do you use 170 playoff ABs as a more accurate indicator of what they can do or do you use 5,260 regular season ABs as a more accurate indicator. I choose to use the more than 5,000 at bats as an indicator of what Soriano is capable of and not 170 sporadic at bats spread out in 15 AB segments across the past 7 years. Can you explain why 100 at bats is a good indicator of a player's true talent level? Moreso than 5,000 at bats?