dew1679666265

Sure it was. They were consistently below league average in team OBP for I think almost every year except 2008 under the Hendry tenure despite having a payroll in the top five NL in that time. and the addition of edmonds, fukudome, and soto, over 1/3rd of the cubs regular position players, had nothing to do with it? like i said, tell me which cub regulars showed significant improvement in isod from 2007 to 2008. Most of our regulars did improve their isod, but likely not enough to be considered "significant." Soriano improved from .038 to .064 Aramis improved from .056 to .091 Theriot improved from .060 to .080 DeRosa improved from .078 to .091 Interestingly, Lee fell from .083 to .070 There was definitely a trend upwards from four of the five primary regulars between 07 and 08, but no huge gains either. consider that soriano's isod was at .074 before joining perry on the cubs. it's also interesting to note that both ramirez and soriano suffered in the slg department in that time. A lot of Soriano's high isod in 2006 was due to 16 intentional walks - the most in his career. In 2008, in fact, his isod was greatly helped by IBBs as well - he had 11. That is interesting on the slugging too. I hadn't noticed that til now.

Teams are going to do poorly overall when they score 3 runs or less. Let's look at two playoff teams last year, the Red Sox and the World Champion Phillies for evidence: 2008 W/L when scoring 3 runs or less for Boston: 10-45 2008 W/L when scoring 3 runs or less for Philadelphia: 12-47 Those are the only two I figured up, but I'd wager that most teams follow that lead. Combined playoff record for the two: 18-7, with the Phillies winning the World Series.

The other teams in the division aren't drastically underperforming, though. The Cubs are the most likely team to break out of the doldrums at any point, so the fact that the Cards and Brewers are allowing us to hang in when we've been so bad is only good news for us. They're not likely to be much better than they've been to this point, while the Cubs are likely to be much better. The longer we hang around in the division while playing poorly, the better our outlook for the stretch run gets. True, but The Brewers have been getting some bad hitting from pretty much everyone but Braun and Fielder lately, and you can argue that any one or more of Hart, Hardy, Cameron, and Hall are due to breakout and day now. Also, the Cards and Brewers both have the freedom to make a trade in a few weeks, which due to bad planning, we can not unless we want to settle on a slight upgrade. Hart: 2008 OPS+: 96; 2009 OPS+: 96 Cameron: OPS+ of 124 is his best since 2006 Hall: 2009 OPS+: 62; 2008 OPS+: 79; 2007 OPS+: 89 Hardy is the only Brewer playing significantly below his normal output. If anything, you could argue Cameron is playing above his head (103 and 110 OPS+ the last two years) and Hall is on the decline (gotten worse each of the last three years, including this one). Hart had a big year in 2007, but is right in line with what he did last year and his career OPS+ is 105. Either team could make a trade, but unless it's major it won't make them better than what we potentially can be.

The other teams in the division aren't drastically underperforming, though. The Cubs are the most likely team to break out of the doldrums at any point, so the fact that the Cards and Brewers are allowing us to hang in when we've been so bad is only good news for us. They're not likely to be much better than they've been to this point, while the Cubs are likely to be much better. The longer we hang around in the division while playing poorly, the better our outlook for the stretch run gets.

You could also say if he's going to break out, this year or next would be the time he'd do it, since he's about to enter his prime years. Not advocating acquiring him, just throwing that out there.

Sure it was. They were consistently below league average in team OBP for I think almost every year except 2008 under the Hendry tenure despite having a payroll in the top five NL in that time. and the addition of edmonds, fukudome, and soto, over 1/3rd of the cubs regular position players, had nothing to do with it? like i said, tell me which cub regulars showed significant improvement in isod from 2007 to 2008. Most of our regulars did improve their isod, but likely not enough to be considered "significant." Soriano improved from .038 to .064 Aramis improved from .056 to .091 Theriot improved from .060 to .080 DeRosa improved from .078 to .091 Interestingly, Lee fell from .083 to .070 There was definitely a trend upwards from four of the five primary regulars between 07 and 08, but no huge gains either.

I don't think that's it at all. He's trying to spark a very talented team that, to this point, has underachieved dramatically. I don't agree with his method, but I understand the reason behind it. His offseason moves didn't make the team this bad, it's still far more talented than the product we've seen on the field thus far.

I could see them selling off guys with one-year deals who are questionable or unlikely to return (Harden, Gregg, etc.) but otherwise I agree we wouldn't do much selling. That said, I don't think we're falling out of contention this season.

It'll be interesting to see what, if any, good this move does. I'm skeptical of the positives in it, but at least there's no bad that will likely come of it.

That's pretty much how I feel - the offense would eventually turn it around without having to fire Perry and that he wasn't at fault at all in this. I take it you dislike the firing of Perry?

That's the biggest confusion for me - both Perry and Joshua (from what I understand) have similar philosophies, so is anything really going to be different from a teaching perspective? Not that I dislike the patience approach or want it changed (I'm glad we're teaching it), I just don't see the likely positive coming from it. What most hitting coaches teach are basically same absolutes as far as hitting, they'll make similar suggestion at the cage and analyze the same flaws, but how they differ is how they present it and whether or not that player will grasp what is being presented. There are likely two reasons for that: one reason is he understands more clearly thru that explanation compared to how it was previously taught, and the other is that he respects the hitting knowledge of this instructor and will take to heart what is being taught, instead of in one ear and out the other. Interesting, thanks. With that in mind, though, what do you think would be the reason that the players grasped what Perry taught last year and are not this year? Or do you think they were grasping it and it just wasn't translating to the field?

While what you say about him trying to get hitters to do too much may be true in some cases, Theriot pulling the ball more this year has made him a better hitter.

Here's a brief synopsis of Von Joshua's career, courtesy of the Sun-Times' Tony Ginnetti.

That's the biggest confusion for me - both Perry and Joshua (from what I understand) have similar philosophies, so is anything really going to be different from a teaching perspective? Not that I dislike the patience approach or want it changed (I'm glad we're teaching it), I just don't see the likely positive coming from it. My only problem with it is that it takes away one our biggest assets in the farm system. Gerald Perry was perfectly fine as a hitting coach. Joshua's replacement on the farm will most likely be horrible, given the Cubs track record It depends. The organization did go the patience/OBP route with both Perry and Joshua, so maybe they'll continue that with whoever they bring in to replace Joshua. I suspect they'll promote from within, though, and I have no idea who the candidates are.

Who do you replace him with? My thinking is, if Soriano were the only one struggling I'd go ahead and drop him down. But when nobody is hitting well, you keep the guys where they're most comfortable (even if it is just psychological) and hope they break out of the slump.

That's the biggest confusion for me - both Perry and Joshua (from what I understand) have similar philosophies, so is anything really going to be different from a teaching perspective? Not that I dislike the patience approach or want it changed (I'm glad we're teaching it), I just don't see the likely positive coming from it.

Joshua definitely did deserve this promotion, so in that sense I'm glad for him. Anyone have any idea who is replacing Von Joshua in Iowa?

As I said in the other thread, I don't necessarily hate this move because Joshua is a terrific hitting coach who teaches the proper approach (patience), but I don't see any real improvement coming out of this. Hopefully I'm wrong, but Perry is just a season removed from doing fantastic things with this offense. I can't really see this move having a big impact - positive or negative.

Here's a link to the story, by the way.

Wow. So many mixed feelings about this one. I don't think Perry deserved to be fired for a month of problems. But anytime you're the hitting/pitching coach, you know that you might get fired just to try to shake up the team and so I can't feel too bad for him. By the same token, my wish would be that Joshua would stay down in the minors where he can teach all the kids his wonderful ways. But if anyone deserves to get a coaching job in the major leagues it is him so I am very happy for him. I don't see how it will help this team. Perry is a great hitting coach. He's one of the major reasons we had a fantastic offense last year. How has Perry changed from last year? Is the instruction not as good? If so, I understand the move, but I don't see how this move fixes anything. Joshua, from everything I've heard, is fantastic as well though, so maybe something good will come of it. I'm afraid it's making a move just to make a move, though.

Vance was the one championing him, if I remember correctly Meph loved him as well, I think talking about him ultimately being a .900 OPS centerfielder, but I don't remember Pujols-esque love for him.

Fuku's BABIP has been atrocious (.230 something I believe) in his current slump. I don't know his LD% in that time, but his season LD% is right around 22%. This would mean that he's getting unbelievably unlucky and is bound to improve his numbers. He just needs to keep hitting the ball hard and being patient and the numbers will come around again. It'll also help when we quite facing lefties and he can get back into a groove.

The problem Lou would face if he came out and lied to the fans and media that he knew how to fix the problem is this - if/when the Cubs hitters don't start hitting, he looks even worse. By not being able to fix the problem and constantly telling the fans and media that everything's fine and he knows exactly how to fix it, he'd look awful and the fans/media would really start questioning why he's not fixing it since he keeps repeating that he can. Hopefully that made sense.

Rothschild is superb. I'd be interested to know what legit complaints people have about him. I can't figure out any.

I understand the thinking behind it - that we're not going to re-sign him after next year and this is likely the peak of his value, so if we're selling anyway, sell high on Lilly. My problem with the idea, though, is that if we could dump a couple of bad contracts, that would free up some room to improve at positions we need to improve at. That would then allow us to compete next year and Lilly will be an integral part of that contention.