Transmogrified Tiger

I think the fact that he'll likely be our best OF is more of a function of our outfield being an offensive abomination than Murton being a stud.

Actually, IIRC we were significantly better in close games last year than in 2004(when we had a better record).

I'd be interested to see if Hairston's OBP last season was inflated by his HBPs. He'd definitely be a better option than Neifi. AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Hairston 380 51 98 24 2 4 138 30 31 46 0.258 0.332 0.363 0.695 If you subtract out Hairston's 11 HBP's, that OBP drops to .314. what if he's just good at getting hbp? a walk is a walk. should people count that against guys like Bonds or Biggio too? I second that. On Base Percentage is not a statistic looking forward, it's a statistic that looks at what you've done. It doesn't matter if getting hit by a pitch is a skill. All that matters is that you were hit by the pitch and that you got on base. Getting rid of HBP from on base percentage would be like taking triples out of batting average because triples are fluky, lucky hits that don't happen often. If Hairston had gotten hit 30 times, then it would be a valid point in projecting what he could do going forward. The hitter has much less control over a HBP than hitting a triple, or even drawing a walk. If a guy has a high number of HBP, then it's a logical and worthwhile point to see if it's flukish. Is it that much more flukish than BABIP? Couldn't that fluctuate just as much if not more than getting HBP? Doesn't it seem like the same guys always seem to be getting HBP? It may not necessarily a skill but it seems like it would be a result of an approach to hitting. If a player is not likely to change his approach to hitting shouldn't his HBP remain relatively constant? That's the point I was making. Hairston has some ability to get hit, and since he didn't get hit a ginormous amount of times, it was consistent with the rest of his career. Had he gotten hit 30 times, that would be much more flukish, and his regression back to the norm would have much more impact on his OBP.

The Cubs brass kept saying how they were happy with Hairston's second half and how well he did, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sounds like the unlearned media is picking up on it.

I much prefer him slowing down while he goes back on a ball to make it look good, then having it go off the tip of his glove for a triple. And then it happening again in the same series.

I'd be interested to see if Hairston's OBP last season was inflated by his HBPs. He'd definitely be a better option than Neifi. AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Hairston 380 51 98 24 2 4 138 30 31 46 0.258 0.332 0.363 0.695 If you subtract out Hairston's 11 HBP's, that OBP drops to .314. what if he's just good at getting hbp? a walk is a walk. should people count that against guys like Bonds or Biggio too? I second that. On Base Percentage is not a statistic looking forward, it's a statistic that looks at what you've done. It doesn't matter if getting hit by a pitch is a skill. All that matters is that you were hit by the pitch and that you got on base. Getting rid of HBP from on base percentage would be like taking triples out of batting average because triples are fluky, lucky hits that don't happen often. If Hairston had gotten hit 30 times, then it would be a valid point in projecting what he could do going forward. The hitter has much less control over a HBP than hitting a triple, or even drawing a walk. If a guy has a high number of HBP, then it's a logical and worthwhile point to see if it's flukish.

I'd be interested to see if Hairston's OBP last season was inflated by his HBPs. He'd definitely be a better option than Neifi. AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Hairston 380 51 98 24 2 4 138 30 31 46 0.258 0.332 0.363 0.695 If you subtract out Hairston's 11 HBP's, that OBP drops to .314. what if he's just good at getting hbp? a walk is a walk. should people count that against guys like Bonds or Biggio too? HBP per 100 PA for Hairston 1999: 1.55 2000: 2.83 2001: 2.15 2002: 1.46 2003: 2.31 2004: 2.39 2005: 2.79 While it was above norms, Hairston seems to be adept at getting HBP. Even if he drops to around 2 HBP per 100 PA's, that's only a difference of 2 times, negligible really. Also, ESPN says Hairston had 12 HBP last year.

And besides the curveball? Hill throws a 91-94 heater with ok movement. It was called a plus pitch by some. Remember that Hill also throws multiple curveballs at different speeds and angles. The velocity on that fastball has been up for debate. Some might tell you that 91 is max.

I'd go with Eaton.

That's fundamentals right there. Way to get low Neifi.

It's easier to find the best player in the game than a "natural leader"? You'd rather have someone who's not the best player in the game(is Jeter in the top 15? 30?) instead of the best player in the game?

What new pitches?? And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them. Yes they would. Isn't the argument that if you sent Ty Cobb as he was into today's game he wouldn't be very good, and if you sent Pujols to 1912 he'd shatter records?

I don't think there's any doubt about that, at least in my mind.

I thought that was you over there! I was in the left part of the main section, about halfway up. And I saw Bryan make a fool of himself on Kiss Kam too, he's in my Spanish class. But yeah, Mizzou sucks. Haha, there's a distinct possibility I was the only one making any noise on that side section. Dandridge(aka Gumby) is my new favorite player, I was yelling for him to come in the whole game. I think I saw you during a timeout too. At least there was free pizza.

Mizzou loses by 3 at home to aTm. They executed the Bryce Drew play perfectly with 1.2 left going the full court, but Gardner couldn't knock down the tie. Fortunately, it doesn't really faze me that they lost. I had fun and didn't really care about the score until the end, plus my friend made a fool of himself on the Kiss Kam.

Bingo. Cutting the pool of teams that might pursue you in half is a huge part of it IMO.

are you referring to his 20 games at low A, or his 50 games in AAA? his full season at AA he slugged a robust .407. (I acknowledge league may be a factor). there simply isn't enough of a track record to make a judgment about Weeks power with any certainty (nor does one mosterous homerun hit on July 18 satisfy the burden of proof). as for strikeouts, I see a trend. at AA he K'd about once every 5.25 PA, at AAA it dropped to 4.8, in the majors it's less than 4.3. The guy has over 900 minor league PA's, with an IsoP over .200. That's plenty good for a second baseman. His minor league K rate is one every 5.3 PA's. I don't know if he's the best in the NL Central right now, but he's certainly shown an ability to hit for power and not strike out a TON, that people could be optimistic about his abilities.

I suppose I can understand the Weeks love, even though his BA was .239 last year and he had a sub-.400 SLG. But Hardy??? The guy that carried a BA under .200 into July? I can't understand the Weeks love. isn't the list who is the best right now? while I realize many drool over his ability to take a walk, he doesn't hit for alot of power, strikes out at an alarming rate, and he made 21 errors in a little over half of a season. the pick has to go to one of the "good hitting for the position," poor range/high fielding % secondbaseman: either Biggio or Walker. considering age and assuming Walker takes his rightful place as the Cubs everyday second baseman, I gotta go with Walker. Weeks' minor league career is evidence of his ability to hit for power and lesser strikeout rates.

This is woefully incorrect.

That was pretty stupid of him. But he's still on pace to challenge Aaron. Best player in the game.

Welcome!

I don't think Pujols has very good #'s against him either. Not many people do. That's what makes it fun. :) 8 for 34, .235/.333/.471/.804

From someone less informed than others that post in this thread, I'd actually think from an offensive perspective we're more of a speed team. Beasley is crazy fast, I think every goal I've ever seen Donovan score involved him winning a footrace to a ball, and I believe Johnson is pretty quick as well. IIRC we're pretty physical in the back.

If you're still undecided at the start of the season, they usually run a free trial where the first couple days(week?) of the season is free.

Probably his 627/854/2400 line against the Cubs. R B I