dew1679666265

I think if the power disappears then the OBP will return to normal. Theriot made a conscious decision to swing for extra bases more often - as opposed to slap hitting - and that's what has increased the power and decreased the OBP. If he cuts back on the swing, the OBP should return.

Ooh, ooh, I got it. Aaron Miles. Get used to him, because we'll be seeing a lot of him over the next month. enjoy. Miles is likely to be more productive than Ensberg or Hillenbrand, I would think. And I don't think I'm exaggerating much.

Could always dump Patton for the extra MI, but that likely won't happen. With al of the extra inning games weve been seeing lately, I wouldnt suggest playing with 11 pitchers. However, it makes one wonder if they could throw a hail Mary and dig up someone like Morgan Ensberg or even Shea Hillenbrand. Granted, thered the chance that theyd be no better if not worse than the garbage brigade. However, with one of these guys, if they cant produce, you just cut ties having given up nothing in the process. I don't think somebody like Ensberg or Hillenbrand would be worth wasting the roster spot on. And surely these extra inning games won't continue at this pace, though the likelihood of us dropping down to 11 pitchers is extremely low. If were going to waste a roster spot, why not be it on someone who has had major league success at one point, although they are quite a ways removed from that success. Both Blanco and Scales provide some value to the roster (defense), though they don't provide much offense. There's a 99% chance Ensberg and Hillenbrand (who has been out of the majors since 2007) won't provide any value to the roster. Hoping for lightning in a bottle on the ML roster is signing a guy like Jim Edmonds who has had good success in the majors in the past (the more recent the better). Hillenbrand wasn't very good when he was in the league and Ensberg hasn't had much offensive value since 2006.

Could always dump Patton for the extra MI, but that likely won't happen. With al of the extra inning games weve been seeing lately, I wouldnt suggest playing with 11 pitchers. However, it makes one wonder if they could throw a hail Mary and dig up someone like Morgan Ensberg or even Shea Hillenbrand. Granted, thered the chance that theyd be no better if not worse than the garbage brigade. However, with one of these guys, if they cant produce, you just cut ties having given up nothing in the process. I don't think somebody like Ensberg or Hillenbrand would be worth wasting the roster spot on. And surely these extra inning games won't continue at this pace, though the likelihood of us dropping down to 11 pitchers is extremely low.

He's played 41 of 54 team games, meaning he's very well on his way to reaching the 75-game mark that guarantees his third year. 34 of 108 to vest. He'd have to blow something out soon not to make it It doesn't seem possible, but he's on pace for 500 PAs And half of them will have been as a pinch hitter. :)

Could always dump Patton for the extra MI, but that likely won't happen.

Eh, maybe I'm exaggerating the hype he gets. "All the credit" is definitely more than he gets, I just think he gets far more credit on that team than he probably should, given how it truly was 100% defense that won it for them. People do tend to speak glowingly of game managers (a little like gritty players in baseball) and he's kind of the poster boy it would seem. Or maybe I'm just still a bit bitter that Dilfer's Ravens knocked a very good Titan team out of a potential SB bid in 2000. :D

That's the downside of being a quarterback. Right or wrong, the QB gets all the credit when things go well (think Trent Dilfer on the 2000 Ravens) or all the blame when things don't go well. Trent Dilfer did not get all the credit when things went well in Baltimore, in fact, he barely got any. I think Romo is a good example here, he gets fellated by the media when Dallas wins, and when they lose, he gets criticized up the wazzoo. On the other hand, somebody like Vinny Testeverde, who was okay as a Jet, but nothing special, is beloved there. Then, Chad Pennington was absolutely worshipped up until he started winning 10 games a year, then everybody nitpicked his shortcomings and eventually hated his guts. Very weird. I think fan bases, including the Bears, take circumstances into account with how they treat the QB. Rex Grossman won a lot in Chicago, but he was dismissed by most fans because he played far too poorly, far too often, even in wins. Kyle Orton was accepted, because he was pretty simple and less error prone. There wasn't much passion in either way with him, people who did not like him didn't hate him like they hated Grossman, and people who liked him didn't like them as much as those who likely Grossman. Cutler will be fine in Chicago as long as he plays well personally. There will be fans that will complain no matter what. There will be those who will want him dead if he fails to win a SB. But Cutler is probably going to play fairly well. If the team fails it will be because the defense failed to slow the decline and the WR were non existent. He won't get unfairly blamed for losses, unless he himself plays poorly. During the 2000 season Dilfer was getting quite a bit of love, it seemed. Even now, the "game manager" QB type is attributed to him and people talk about it like it's something for a quarterback to strive toward. I agree with Testaverde and Romo, though. Those two are definitely better examples than Dilfer. If Cutler puts up very good numbers in Chicago, I think he'll be judged a bit less harshly by many fans, but the "he can't win" tags and the like will be placed on him, much like they were on Peyton until he finally won a Super Bowl.

Branyan is worse defensively at third than Fontenot has been, but I don't think he'll be significantly worse. He played 35 games there last year so I doubt he's deteriorated much. The key is, if he keeps up even in the neighborhood of his current hitting pace, he'll be a large upgrade offensively. Also keep in mind Aramis will likely need a few extra days off and we'd then have Branyan to fill those spots while Fontenot stays at second. Hoff does make him a bit redundant in a bench role, though. That will be fine until Ramirez comes back. Assuming we get Branyan, for now, hes at 3rd with Font at 2nd, with Reed, Hoff, Miles, Hill, and 1 of Blanco/Scales/Freel. Since We really should have more than 1 backup middle infielder, when Ramirez comes back, Hoff could be the odd man out, as Branyan would make him obsolete. The, we have a bench of Branyan, Reed, Miles, Hill, and 1 of F/S/B. Branyan wouldn't make Hoff obsolete. The idea would be to bring in Branyan, play him at third til Ramirez gets back, then play him some in the outfield (when Bradley goes down especially) but mostly as another power bat off the bench and a fill-in for the numerous days Aramis will likely need off. Hoff would then also play some outfield, be another lefty power bat off the bench and be the primary backup to DLee. Both would have defined roles, even if they overlapped some.

He's played 41 of 54 team games, meaning he's very well on his way to reaching the 75-game mark that guarantees his third year.

There's not a chance I'd want Abreu in right field for two seasons. Keeping DeRo and playing him in right would have been a far better option than signing Abreu - especially for 2 years. Ibanez is actually being paid a bit more than Bradley, but is 37 years old this season. I'll be amazed if he can keep his good production up for very long. That's what worried me about him. And Dunn is a cheaper option only in that he doesn't have the third year option that Bradley has. Dunn is on a two-year deal that pays him $8 million this year and $12 million next year.

That's the downside of being a quarterback. Right or wrong, the QB gets all the credit when things go well (think Trent Dilfer on the 2000 Ravens) or all the blame when things don't go well.

A great quarterback is what you said, but one person can only do so much. If a team has a great QB and nothing else, that great QB is not going to win very many games. Likewise, a great team around an average/mediocre QB can make the quarterback look worlds better than he actually is. For instance, Ben Roethlisberger has fairly pedestrian stats (89.4 QB rating, 101:69 career TD:INT ratio), but a 51-20 career record. That's not because he's a great QB, it's because he's been on fantastic Steeler teams most of his career. Vince Young is 18-11 as a starting QB, which would lead you to believe he's been above average looking only at his career record. However, he's been pretty awful as a starting QB, he's just been on some good Titan teams. Elvis Grbac is another barely mediocre QB (79.6 rating, 99:81 TD:INT, 59.1 comp %) but is 10 games over .500 for his career. You add in the examples rawaction brought up of great QBs with bad records and a pattern begins to form. I just don't see much, if any, good that can come from using QB record - especially when compared with how it can be very deceiving.

Branyan is worse defensively at third than Fontenot has been, but I don't think he'll be significantly worse. He played 35 games there last year so I doubt he's deteriorated much. The key is, if he keeps up even in the neighborhood of his current hitting pace, he'll be a large upgrade offensively. Also keep in mind Aramis will likely need a few extra days off and we'd then have Branyan to fill those spots while Fontenot stays at second. Hoff does make him a bit redundant in a bench role, though.

If Aramis comes back around the break, I agree with your main point. Assuming he's available, though, (which may be a stretch, I'm not sure) someone like Branyan would be worth giving a couple of prospects for, I'd think. Not only could he improve the play at third, but after Aramis gets back he becomes a very good bat off the bench that can play every corner position. Obviously price would be the key, but I'd be willing to make that move whereas a pure third baseman might not be worth it at this point.

My offseason preferences were Dunn, Burrell, Bradley, Ibanez and Abreu out of those guys. The only ones I really had any interest in signing, though, were Dunn, Burrell and Bradley. I suspect Dunn and Abreu are the only two on that list who are performing at their capability. Ibanez will almost certainly fall off quite a bit, while Bradley and Burrell should improve considerably.

Soriano played in 22 games and got 53 ABs with the Yankees in 2000. If he was on the postseason roster that year, he didn't get a plate appearance.

Here's his baseball reference splits page, which will show you all of those stats (though I don't think they break down the situational stats by month).

Thanks Rocket.

They're supposed to evaluate him pretty soon and see if he needs surgery. If he does, he may well be out til August (I believe is what I heard), otherwise he should be back soon.

well, even if you go with Durham at 2nd and Font at 3rd, it gets rid of the Scales/Blanco nonsense. Still not ideal, but also an improvement offensively. But people's gripe with Fontenot is that he sucks defensively at 3rd. Adding Durham doesn't help that situation at all. You put Durham at 2nd last night and Fontenot still gives up runs One argument in favor, though, is that if we can't (or won't) get one of the third basemen that have been mentioned then playing Fontenot at third regularly will hopefully get him better there and Durham will add some offense. If Aramis does return around the All-Star break, though, it's probably not worth signing Durham at this point.

Either hes not tryig or hes aiming too high. I refuse to believe that if he was really trying to get a stop gap, he couldnt get someone like Aurilia or Betemit or sign Durham. Maybe he tried to low ball for Branyan, Huff, BLalock or someone, and the teams arent bitingm but we all know how good Hendry can be when it comes to trading, and if he were really trying, he would have had something by now. Its been long enough since the need was made obvious. What if teams just aren't selling quite yet? Teams like the Mariners and Orioles may just want to keep their players you mentioned and perhaps the Rangers have no real desire to part with Blalock. I don't know either way, but the two options you laid out are not the only two options possible. As for Aurilia and Betemit, yeah, they're probably available for a price, but neither are very good. I would be against giving anything for Aurilia (or even signing him) and I'd be interested in Betemit only if he's super cheap (i.e. Kevin Hart or some other minor league filler). Making a trade for the simple fact of making a trade rarely turns out well.

Kouzmanoff is better than the type of guys I'm talking about. And he'll likely cost far too much in prospects for the value he'll bring the team.

I see where you're coming from on the defensive metrics. I don't agree that they have no value, though. There are some I outright disregard - such as one a few years ago that had Andruw Jones (before his age caught up to him) as a middle of the road defender. That said, UZR hasn't really given any outlandish analyses that I've seen. As for Bradley's ability, what I've watched I've seen a pretty average defender. He gets to most of the balls he should and generally fields them cleanly. UZR might be erring to the positive for Bradley, but I don't think significantly. He certainly hasn't been poor this season.

What metric would you prefer? UZR has him as an above average defender and from what I've seen in his career, that's probably pretty accurate. I was concerned before the season that his defensive skills would have dropped off after not playing the field last year. I haven't seen all that many terrible plays so far this year. EDIT: I'm also curious as to what reason you have for "not putting any stock whatsoever" in UZR. Being wary of any defensive metric is perfectly understandable, but they also all have their merits (mostly, at least).