Transmogrified Tiger

How does OBP at the lead off spot not improve the offense? Defense

Pierre improves the defense? Someone's been watching too much Sportscenter.

Career numbers are a bit deceiving because Pierre spent 3 years in Colorado, but OPS punishes him for that despite not having the power to take advantage. His OPS+ as a Marlin(a.k.a the last 3 years): 98, 107, 84; average of 96. Eckstein's over that timeframe: 79, 77, 98; average of 84. Neither are very good offensive players who rely on good fortune with balls in play to post good OBP numbers.

The big picture for me is Hendry hasn't built a great team yet, and he's been awful the past two offseasons. Unlike some fans, and apparantly the Cubs management, I'm not satisfied with mediocrity. It's hard to have a great team when you build the team around dominant pitching only to have your dominant pitchers not stay healthy. Not to mention when two of your middle of the order guys can't stay on the field consistently. If Wood, Prior, and Z each make 30 starts this year and we don't win 90 games then Hendry is to blame. But until we can keep our best players on the field I don't think Hendry is entirely at fault. well maybe if hendry relied a little bit more on building a team with a top 5 OBP, we wouldn't have to rely so much on pitching. I'll take dominant pitching over top 5 OBP always. Dominant pitching wins championships not top 5 OBP. It's not an either/or proposition. He has the pitching, and it's been pretty cheap the last few years. Considering that and the payroll he's been given, he should be able to put up a much better team OBP-wise and therefore offensively.

That would be an excellent bench. Ton of power. A bunch of K's, but those guys could all get on base, and most importantly, wouldn't give the team a huge dropoff in case players gets injured. Just a question as I like Branyan a lot too, but how do those guys play as pinch hitters? The .370 OBP of Branyan is nice but I don't think that's his OBP coming off the bench. Do players like that generally do better or worse in bench rolls? I don't think there's much consistency in numbers put up "off the bench". Partially because of sample size, and paritally because of the wide variety of situations that encompasses.

These next three games are huge for Mizzou, @ KSU, vs. ISU, @ NU. If we can go 3-0 going into Texas I'll feel pretty good at our chances to make the tournament. But these next four games will be very tough and are a huge test for this team. You've got the Quin Snyder Happy Dance as your sig! Kudos.

Hidalgo doesn't have much of a platoon split. Over the last three years he's been a little better against RHP than LHP.

Oh absolutely. I'm not going to say that the B12 deserves a ton of bids right now, I just think it's great fun to follow because of the parity.

McKinney runs the offense to start the game, but the way it works doesn't lend itself to a dominant ballhandler. Horton gets a lot of minutes and runs things when he's on the court. You can say KU lost it, but you have to do something right to outscore a team 14-5 in under two minutes(especially the last two minutes of regulation). You're thinking of the OU game with the buzzer beater, Marshall Brown made free throws with 3.something seconds left to give them the win. Ever since the U of I game they've been a different team. They're scoring more, for the most part they're defending better, Gardner has stepped it up to be the best scorer in the B12(Apparently Mike DeCourcy liked him for his midseason All-American team FWIW), and McKinney and Brown have taken turns stepping up to be the second scoring threat. Of course, it's not all great. Brown is an undersized power forward(which spells trouble against teams like Texas), if Gardner has to miss lengths of time with fouls we're in deep trouble, and the win streak has come against several cupcakes plus 3 of 4 B12 games at home. However, with the Big 12 being what it is this year, that may benefit in raising the confidence level of the team, and as of now they're in the driver's seat to finish very well in the Big 12 and possibly make the tournament. It'll just come down to how consistent they can be against a conference deep with teams of similar caliber.

By the way, Illini fans get on my nerves with the "Warr-en Car-ter" chant. Just like Cub fans grated my nerves with the "Au-gie, Au-gie" chant. Also, be glad you're not inundated with Big XII basketball like I've endured over the past ten years living in St. Louis and now Kansas. Big XII basketball has no personality to it (as I await a rebuttal from the artist formerly known as CPATT 20 and why Mizzou should be a top 25 team) just like the Pac-10. I love the B12 this year. Aside from Texas, there's no one that's really that great, and aside from Baylor, there's no one that's really that terrible. I can see why you'd think it's boring, but as someone with an interest in one of the teams the parity makes it pretty great. Oh, and Mizzou is 6-1 since the Illinois game(the one loss coming on a buzzer beater), beat ranked OU on the road, and is in second place in the B12. And Thomas Gardner shoots 3's for a better percentage than JJ Redick. :D I didn't see the Mizzou/Kansas game but let me guess. Fans rushed the court, right? Yes, I know all about the rivalry, but neither team is ranked and both teams are average in a very average conference. What was the point in rushing the court if they did? Oh yeah, the tore down the goal posts after beating Nebraska, too. Glad to see expectations are high in Columbia. Just remember, I told you last summer I'd be razzing you a lot because of my hatred for Mizzou. I still predict they'll win their home games and lose a bunch on the road (I know about their OU win on the road, but losing at home against Colorado?). They rushed because it's our biggest rival(something like the 2nd oldest in college basketball) who we just beat in overtime after being down 7 with 30 secs left. The atmosphere lent itself to it, see my sig for more. Colorado was disappointing, but they're not a bad team, and they lost on a buzzer beater like I said.

By the way, Illini fans get on my nerves with the "Warr-en Car-ter" chant. Just like Cub fans grated my nerves with the "Au-gie, Au-gie" chant. Also, be glad you're not inundated with Big XII basketball like I've endured over the past ten years living in St. Louis and now Kansas. Big XII basketball has no personality to it (as I await a rebuttal from the artist formerly known as CPATT 20 and why Mizzou should be a top 25 team) just like the Pac-10. I love the B12 this year. Aside from Texas, there's no one that's really that great, and aside from Baylor, there's no one that's really that terrible. I can see why you'd think it's boring, but as someone with an interest in one of the teams the parity makes it pretty great. Oh, and Mizzou is 6-1 since the Illinois game(the one loss coming on a buzzer beater), beat ranked OU on the road, and is in second place in the B12. And Thomas Gardner shoots 3's for a better percentage than JJ Redick. :D

So you think the Cubs need "another speed guy" to pair with Pierre as well? Speed is overrated. Speed is completely worthless without other, more important aspects of the game in your repertoire. Speed is way down the list of necessary ingredients to be a good baseball player. Being an average runner is not a setback in the least. There are a ton of crappy ballplayer's whose speed has hypnotized baseball people into keeping them in the game long past their expiration dates. Speed is nice to have, and all else being equal you'd have to take the faster guy. But all else usually isn't equal, and often times dramatically outweighs the difference speed will make. I think CCF put it quite nicely. Now you respond and tell me why these are not GOOD things. . break a pitchers concentration on the mound... it increases defensive range... (getting to more balls for outs instead of hits) decrease hitting into double plays... put pressure on defenses causing errors... They are not BAD things by any means, they are just not nearly as important as other factors. No one is saying speed is bad, or the things you can do (well) with speed are bad. No one at all.

Even if they lose those three road games, and if they do the nearly impossible and lose a home game this year they'll still finish 12-4 in the conference. Plus, there's no shame in losing at Iowa, OSU and MSU. Exactly, they're on the fast track to win the conference, part of that being because they don't go to either Assembly hall.

Myth? It's been shown to be true over and over with this group. They didn't want to get in a bidding war with Giles. They didn't want to add Tejada with AGonz around, they didn't look at Vladdy because they thought their OF was settled. Compete for the division is not the same as win the WS. It's not. It's a clear difference in strategy. The Cubs want to win enough to be in the playoff hunt late in the season, and hope for the best, instead of try and dominate and maximize their chances for the WS. They want several stable mediocre veterans who they know will give you mediocre performances, instead of aggressively adding difference makers to the roster. This is no myth. It's their stated plan. Didn't Billy Beane say its his job to get a team together that makes the playoffs, and the rest is dumb-luck? if you subscribe to that philosophy - and I believe that many on this bd. do - how can you fault JH for focusing on winning the div. as opposedto the WS? Not saying I agree, just wondering. I think there's a difference in the comparison. Beane was saying that you build the best team that you can, and once you get in the playoffs you hope it works out. Goony's point about the organization is that they aren't striving for that best possible team, they play it safe(see Baker's moves, Hendry's veterans v. difference makers, all in Goony's previous posts) so that they'll be competitive in the division.

I wouldn't say UW is for sure not making the second weekend of the tourney, but I wouldn't guarantee them a spot either. As someone pointed out earlier, their easier conference schedule will likely lead to a favorable seed, which will work in their favor. As far as the team itself goes, I'm going to wait and see how they handle their trips to Iowa, OSU, and MSU. Their performance(not necessarily W-L result) will be telling to how far they go in the tourney IMO.

Find a backup infielder, just about any of them, and they are a good bet to be better than Neifi. The only player worse offensively than Neifi last year was Patterson, and Neifi doesn't have age or past success on his side to go with his plus defense. He hinders the team with his presence on the roster, even moreso because of our manager. Myself, at the time Neifi was signed I advocated acquiring a SS and letting Cedeno have Neifi's role.

Again, no one said speed or fundamentals are "non factors". The problem is when people get too swept up in that facet of the game, and rank them more important than other more important factors(Sulley's list from earlier looked pretty good). In the same way, performance-oriented folks need to be careful not to blindly look at numbers without knowing the reason behind them, whether it's more numbers like BABIP, or tools(hence being able to distinguish Jon Connolly from Reynel Pinto). Speed is great to have, and it influences the game in the ways CarolinaCubFan mentioned, which are hard to quantify. However, putting the ability to cut off balls in the gap over the ability to hit home runs(which is an odd comparison because it only mentions one aspect of speed and one aspect of power, and from different disciplines in defense and offense) is part of what I referenced above IMO.

I don't see the particular relevance to this discussion, but yes, I like Corey. I always found it interesting that the most sabermetrically-inclined poster on this board was named for one of the least sabermetric players (toolsy & potential, poor minor league numbers, minimal results, low OBP, etc.) in major league baseball. I wouldn't call myself the most sabermetrically-inclined(BK would get my vote), but my previous username was mostly due to lack of creativity. Spur of the moment, I just as easily could've been MPrior22 or (perish the thought) BHill17.

It's his first year of arbitration. Willis just set the record for first year SP's at 4.35 mil, so considering the time Prior's missed that seems well within range.

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios. Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO. But you listed him as an "improvement", did you not? Yes. Just the same as other clubs recieved credit for better grades than Cubs for simply re-signing their own FAs. That's a pretty disingenuous statement, regardless of the article. If you're bringing him back he's not an improvement, especially at his age and performance last year.

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios. Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO. But you listed him as an "improvement", did you not?

I think you're 5+ to 3- is poor analysis. (who are the 4 very solid players he signed, I don't see 4) And I think D is perfectly reasonable. Hendry misappropriated his efforts. If you study for a test and end up spending 90% of your time on subjects other than the ones that will actually matter to the test, you're going to struggle and get a bad grade. That's what happened to Hendry. He mistakenly focused on less important positions, and because of it the team as a whole suffers. The 4 players are Pierre, Eyre, Howry,and Dempster (close enough to offseason). It's your opinion that Hendry studied for the wrong test because you want a different test (offense). Hendry wants pitching as top priority because pitching has proven to win championships, while offense has not. Hendry knows more about this business than all of us. I grade Hendry based on his ability to satisfy his own priorities for the club, not my own personal wishes (though I happen to be a pitching-first guy myself). If Hendry was never going to pursue top 5 offensive output players, then it is not right to grade him on a failure to acquire those players. Grading shouldn't be based on differing philosophies of club-building. Dempster is in this offseason? People aren't upset at the pitching acquisitions because they aren't offensive acquisitions. Check the threads for when each signed. People were upset because both had by and large marginal careers until their career years last year. Given their respective age and the wild variation in relief pitchers, they were poor selections for expensive and long term deals.

I know there are at least several people that are Schneider fans here, but I've never really been that enamored with him. His defense is great, and his offense was better away from RFK last year, but he's average offensively on the whole.

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good. It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series. Obviously we'll take a playoff appearance any way we can get it. Looking at BK's post shows you the inherent disadvantage we'd have though.

Naturally once you're in the playoffs you want to make it as far as possible, but since the playoffs are pretty unpredictable, i.e. inferior teams beat superior teams, gauging the quality of the team should be mostly confined to the regular season.