XZero771679666304

We had better score here. :evil:

There is far greater success of Mitre succeeding as a starter and Williams as a reliever than Williams as a starter and Mitre as a reliever. Williams isn't pitching well, and his relative success 2 years ago doesn't mean much. He doesn't strike many out, and gives up too many hard hit balls and fly balls. Well I guess I also expect Mitre to be included in any deal for a bat. And I'm sorry, but I think Williams is just a better pitcher. Unless Sergio can develop more pitches, he will always be very inconsistent. Williams has better stuff overall, and if you look at his career numbers, he throws more groundballs than flyballs. Judging him on 3 starts is a bit premature.

Mike has apparantly tumbled down the depth chart. He was wasted in the first game of that Atlanta doublheader, and he's no longer being used like a setup man. Novoa, who has been either great or awful has somehow gotten the job without showing much. No one seems to want the set-up role. Maybe we'll have to wait for Williamson, I don't know. But Wuertz has turned into the righty version of Glendon Rusch with his WHIP. I don't know why Novoa would be considered the set-up man he hasn't done much better. I'd like Williams out of the rotation, where he hasn't impressed me at all, and into a setup role. Williams is a strter, and he's pitching better than Mitre or Rusch. He has had success at the ML level, and he has a better repetoire of pitches. Rusch is slumping badly, and Mitre is wildly inconsistent. IMO, Williams will better better than both over the long haul.

Jeromy's career OBP is nearly a hundred points higher than his career AVG. The guy has always been patient.

I've always done the same thing, along with many of the guys I have played with. You avoid the punishment on your index finger, but it is more comfortable than sticking it out of the glove. IMO, it also helps you close the glove quickly.

why do we need a lead-off hitter if we have one, named Jerr hairston. You said it yourself, didn't we just sweep Florida with him in the lineup? So if we have our lead off man, why not go after another big run producer named Adam Dunn? Because Hairston is not long for Chicago - for multiple reasons, mainly like Ive said before, the Cubs brass seems to think he is a stupid baseball player. And we need more than one leadoff type hitter anyway. Either way, Juan Pierre is not what we need. His OBP has been hovering around .300 all year, and he gets thrown out stealing over a third of the time. His arm sucks, and he has zero power. No thanks.

:?: He bunted the ball and then ran into it.

That's an inauspicious beginning.

Nope. Looked like he was squeezed just a bit.

Kearns = Patterson IMO, this would be a totally lateral move for both teams.

woo, the first snoty post directed toward me. I just got goosebumps :wink: :lol: Anyway, I just thought the part about DLee and AP's homerun production might be interesting in this debate. I think the whole park factor thing is overrated, for the most part. You looked at home runs, but a better overall indicator is that Lee has a 1.189 OPS at home and a 1.183 OPS on the road. Those are for all intents and purposes, identical. I also think the popular perception of Sammy Sosa was that he benefitted from Wrigley, though his overall and HR totals were just about dead even in his prime years. You already see that Aramis does not benefit much from Wrigley. And IIRC, several of the Marlins coaches said that Pro Player killed Derrek, and predicted 40+ HR from him outside of there. This makes sense since Lee's power is from alley to alley, and that is no man's land in Miami. In parks like that, only dead pull hitters will put up big numbers, and Derrek is not a dead pull hitter. The whole notion that Wrigley is a hitters paradise is really not accurate at all. It favors the hitters slightly, but not nearly as much as some think. The reason for this, IMO, is that it is a park of extremes. I say that because while eveyone knows about the days the wind is howling out and homers are easy to come by, more often the wind is blowing stright in, and in about a third of the games (rough estimation based on watching for 20 years), you may as well be trying to hit a ball out of the Grand Canyon. Some hitters have benefitted from the cozy alleys, but the 355 down the lines are no easy pokes. The bottom line is that while Wrigley will give you a lot of homers, it will take away a lot of them, also. Any players that do benefit are probably hitters with marginal power who plays there enough to mold his game to the field. Players who are great hitters with genuine power generally rise above the limitations or enhancements that a given field gives them Now there are players who benefit from their home parks greatly. Take Morgan Ensberg, for example. While Morgan oocasionally gets XBH to other fields, he is an extreme pull hitter. This is a huge advantage in MMP. Over the past three years, Ensberg's OPS has been nearly 300 points lower on the road. This year has been better, but there is still a 150+ point differential. His power numbers are also better than Pujols this year, but his you can attribute to park factors, unlike Lee. Here's another indicator. I looked at the number of parks played in this year, and how each player fared OPS-wise overall. Since a 1.000 OPS is the mark of excellence, so to speak, I wanted to see how many parks Lee, Pujols and Ensberg managed to reach that number in, and which ones. Pujols has played in 14 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in eight of them. He fared the best in Turner, Coors, Miller and Citizens Bank. Lee has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 10 of them. He has performed the best in Pro Player, Busch, Great American, Miller, BOB and Dodger Stadium. Ensberg has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 3 of them. He has fared well at MMP, Coors and Great American. Also, 17 of his 24 HR have been hit between those three hitters parks, and nowhere else has he hit more than 1. This is based on only this year, but the three year splits bear out around the same level of consistancy for Lee and Pujols. and inconsistancy for Ensberg. Statistically speaking Lee is actually the most consistant of the three, independent of park, though not the most productive. Ensberg I used to illustrate a player who has their stats inflated by ballpark. Lee does not fall into this category at all. In fact, if you rate his performance by park over the past three years, Wrigley sits right in the middle of the 23 parks he has played in over that time The same can be said of Pujols and Busch, right in the middle, 11th of 20. So from a relative performance standpoint, Pujols is no more consistant than Lee, and Lee is no more dependent on his home park than Albert.

RBI's are a team dependent stat, as are runs scored. Lets take a look at independent stats: AVG: Lee .378 Pujols .337 OBP: Lee .452 Pujols .423 SLG: Lee .733 Pujols .594 OPS: Lee 1.186 Pujols 1.017 RC: Lee 95.1 Pujols 80.7 RC27: Lee 12.35 Pujols 9.35 ISOP: Lee .356 Pujols .257 That's not cherry picking, either. Not only has Derrek been better in almost every individual statistical category, but it's not even close. In order for Pujols to even approach Lee in any of these categories, Derrek would have to fall flat on his face. Even if Derrek reverted to his career norms for the entire second half, the chances would be remote at best that Albert would catch him. Especially since Derrek has been a better second half player over the course of his career. Now in 2006 Albert will probably be better, but there is no question who has been better this year.

I agree, but there is still that glimmer of hope. And that glimmer is brighter than in several years past, because the talent on this team is so much greater than it's ever been in my lifetime. Of course, they will have to catch several breaks, including at least one team that is currently playing well to fall on its face. I think there is that glimmer of hope, and that is the pitching staff. I am not saying this will or even is likely to happen, but with our starting staff, we have on of the only teams who could realistically reel off 10 straight or 12 of 13, etc. That is of course provided that the offense continues the approach we saw them adopt in the Florida series, or we may see another eight game losing streak, which they are equally capable of. Sorry, but when was the last time we won 10 straight? I cant even remember the last time we did that and def never since Baker has been manager. We never had the offense to win 10 straight even with our pitching. Sorry, but I did say "not likely" and that the Cubs are "capable". No where did I say it would happen, just that it was within the realm of possibility. Besides, if used correctly, as we saw in Florida, the offense is very capable of scoring 5-6 runs a game for a prolonged stretch, and the pitching, 1-5, is capable of shutting teams down for a good stretch too. The point was that we have a weapon in our starting pitching that most teams don't have, and that is at least the source for a glimmer of hope.

I do not consider myself a Dunn detrator, but I have my doubts about whether he would be a great addition to the Cardinals given the cost of a trade. First of all, the Cards already have power guys in there lineup that strike out a lot (Reggie and Jimmy). Moreover, given that the Cardinals are looking for more post season help, I wonder how often Dunn would strike out in the playoffs. He is currently striking out every 3rd time up to bat. The pitching is far superior in the playoffs and can dominate strike out hitters. Dunn isn't going to be a Cardinal. Or a Cub. Or an Astro. That is unless the Reds get even stupider than they have been. They can trade him outside the division and get more talent for him than if they traded him to the Cards, Cubs or Astros.

Dempster is far better as a closer than he was a starter. Hendry has one pricey position filled, so dealing for Wagner doesn't make any sense. With the rest of the season in doubt, taking on unecessary salary doesn't make sense either. If Hendry wants Wagner, he can sign him in the offseason, though I doubt that happens either.

If Wags is traded, I'll put my money on Boston, who needs him more and has just as much if not more to offer.

I agree, but there is still that glimmer of hope. And that glimmer is brighter than in several years past, because the talent on this team is so much greater than it's ever been in my lifetime. Of course, they will have to catch several breaks, including at least one team that is currently playing well to fall on its face. I think there is that glimmer of hope, and that is the pitching staff. I am not saying this will or even is likely to happen, but with our starting staff, we have on of the only teams who could realistically reel off 10 straight or 12 of 13, etc. That is of course provided that the offense continues the approach we saw them adopt in the Florida series, or we may see another eight game losing streak, which they are equally capable of.

Kerry has had more games in the past few years in which he has gone 6+ innings, given up 3 or fewer runs, and lost or got a no decision than just about anybody. I was having an argument with a Cards fan who said Morris was a better pitcher even though Wood had beeter peripherals just because Matt had more wins, so I looked at the game logs from 2001-2003. I think Morris had around 10-15 starts when he went 6+ and gave up three or fewer and lost or got a ND, while Kerry, IIRC, had about 35, at least 10 of which were games he gave up zero runs. This is just an example. Unless they do it at the plate PITCHERS CANNOT WIN GAMES. The way I see it, the pitchers job is to keep their team in the game as best they can, and it is encumbant on the other eight guys (nine in the AL) to win the game. You can be a filthy pitcher who rarely gives up anything and lose a ton of games because you are on a team with a lous offense. Conversely, you can be an average pitcher who gets a ton of wins because your team scores a ton of runs. For a more direct example, let's look at 2003: A)14-11 3.20 ERA 1.19 WHIP .203 BAA 266K 4 CG 2 SHO 22 QS B)21-8 4.02 ERA 1.33 WHIP .272 BAA 180K 1 CG 0 SHO 20 QS C)21-7 3.81 ERA 1.31 WHIP .223 BAA 149K 1 CG 1 SHO 19 QS So who is the best pitcher of those three? It is quite clearly pitcher A, who many here know is Kerry Wood. The other two? Andy Pettitte and Russ Ortiz. So how did Russ and Andy win more games? Is it because they "know" how to win? No, that's BS. Here's the difference: Runs of support per game: Wood 4.61 Pettitte 7.02 Ortiz 6.49 Wood tied for 27th in wins in 2003, behind many pitchers, varying from average to downright bad, and run support is the reason. You can say the same thing for Wood in 2002 and 2001, and for many other pitchers. In any given year, you can go down the list of pitchers and see many bad pitchers with more wins than good pitchers. The whole notion that good pitchers "know" how to win is ludicrous. If a pitcher gives up one or two runs and loses 1-0 or 2-1, they're not as good a pitcher who gives up six or seven and wins 7-6 or 8-7? Of course not, and only a fool would think so. Again, pitchers cannot win games. The can only hold down the other team and hope their offense can win the game. Wins are simply a poor indicator of how effective a pitcher is.

Just so you know, Pie probably won't be a leadoff hitter when he is in the majors. At least he shouldn't be one. Corey shouldn't have been either, but we all know how that turned out.

Everyone said the same thing last year. Last year they had Carlos Beltran and Jeff Bagwell. And Jeff Kent.

When they won 105 games and went to the World Series? Last year sucked. A whole lot of luck went into that. Between career years and very few injuries, the Cards looked absolutely blessed. Even then Carp did go down towards the end, as many predicted he would. He is mowing them down now, and he may continue to, but he's going to have to do it for a couple full seasons before people can really take him seriously. (Although the same can be said for Prior) If the Cards win 105 this year, I'll be alot more impressed.

And he makes plenty of plays. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/gold_glove_nl.shtml Well that proves a whole lot of nothing. Derek Jeter has won gold gloves. Raffy has won a gold glove. Yeah, that means alot. It's a glamour award.

Can you imagine if it was Holla in right and Dubois in left and Dubois tanked? Ugh. Holla is a guy who has never put up corner OF numbers even in a full season, and Dubois is unproven at the big leuague level. A proven corner OF had to be signed. If Hendry promised Holla more PT when he signed, that was definitely a bad move. I can't speculate as to what exactly they were thinking more playing time meant, because Todd didn't get alot last year. But somehow I doubt they meant a being a full time starter. Hendry might have not, and Dusty probably did. Who knows. Hendry deserves blame for the pretenses under which he was signed. I think Hendry intended for Dubois to play alot more, but that is a mess of his own making if he promised Holla more PT, especially knowing Dusty's extreme loyalty to vets. But you'd need a guy like Holla on the bench. He is the lefty power bat off the bench that a good team needs. His signing was a good one, but promising him more PT was a mistake. And Perez was signed to be a bench player. I'm sure Jim, like most other people, thought Nomar was healthy, especially after he tore it up in ST. Certainly no one envisioned Neifi being in the position he is now. The mess with Cedeno is in no was Hendry's fault. There was no way to know Cedeno would be ripping up AAA, and that Nomar would be injured and Neifi would be the everyday SS, even after he took a statistical nosedive. While Hendry has made some bad moves, I sincerely believe he thought Cedeno would get more PT, and Baker was cryptic enough in their discussion about it that Jim believed he would comply. If I am right, that was a foolish assumption, but the move makes no sense otherwise. They could have just kept Wilson if they know Neifi would keep playing all the time. You can't really say that if Hendry wanted the kids to play he wouldn't have signed Holla, Neifi and Macias. Holla and Neifi at least are good bench guys. A team needs those. You can't build a team with none of the role players that Dusty likes because you need those guys. You need some good veterans on your bench, but with Dusty you can't have that and see your kids play. I also believe that Dusty was an impulse big name signing, meant to sent a message that the Cubs wanted to win. I think that MacPhail and Hendry were so caught up in that they failed to really look at the details. This was another front office mistake, IMO. However looking at this season, you have to assign more blame to Baker than Hendry. Like I said in another thread, Dusty has made the absolute worst out of a questionable situation.

But what decides it is the entire first half. Willis and Carp are about dead even after tonight's game, but you have to go with Clemens. I don't care for the guy at all, but his 0.95 WHIP, .187 BAA and 1.48 ERA smoke both Carp and Dontrelle. If he were playing for a team that scored runs, he'd have won 15 or 16 games by now. How many ASG starts he's had in the past is irrelevant. He is simply the best SP in the NL.

If it get's to Murton's spot, what do you want to bet we see Holla?