Transmogrified Tiger

Here at Mizzou, we've come to the conclusion that kU is not worthy of capitalization. I think you guys just don't understand the rules. :wink: Speaking of Big XII schools and language...okay I just wanted an excuse to post this pic. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/cubsfan_05/TEXA.jpg

No offense, but I can't see Wade getting the MVP. Only because of the people on his team that will take away some of his numbers. Plus, there is a guy out in C-town that will be posting numbers that threaten triple-double average. The conquest of the East begins tomorrow! Too bad I relocated and can only see the Cavaliers on national TV now. Michael Reghi is basketball announcing perfection.

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense.

Moneyball is a book, not an adjective.

I think that lower line for Lofton is very generous.

BP says 106 rate in CF, 30 Runs above replacement, and 9 above average.

I don't think Greenberg is good enough to be the starting CF. His ceiling is that of a spot starter, 5th outfielder, a good one at that. On this team however, with LF and maybe SS going to uncertain production, it makes little sense to gamble again with cost effectiveness given our payroll.

Lugo's option was picked up by TB for 06' Doesn't mean he can't be traded by TB this offseason. I still think there's a good chance he'll be traded. Who does TB have to play SS if they trade Lugo? Upton, they could bring back Alex Gonzalez if they think he's not quite ready.

I don't follow that at all. Can you explain? Unless you think his hole in his swing will open back up that doesn't make sense to me. My interpretation is that his improvements caused him to make better contact, therefore more singles turned into doubles. However, fixing his swing doesn't change the fact that he got more hits than he should have(his BABIP as well as in conjunction with his LD% show this). Since more of those "lucky" hits were for extra bases, his numbers will fall more precipitously when those aren't there next year, which I believe will be the case.

it looks like to me looking at that lineup that ramirez is batting seventh? Looks to me like he was listing positionally, not the lineup. LF, CF, RF, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, C

Mizzou is facing another top 5 ranked rush defense -- their third in three weeks. Let's hope it is like the Nebraska game. If it turns out like the Kansas game, lets hope Pinkel actually adjusts. I want to see more Woods/Temple in the backfield and more use of the TEs in the passing game. This is one of the biggest games in Mizzou history IMHO. Fortunately they aren't as stingy in the passing game as kU and Nebraska are. Smith needs to be accurate for us to win. We aren't winning in Boulder with him completing 33% or whatever pathetic percentage it was against kU. His problem all year has been overthrowing deep balls. Hopefully the air out there helps, or something. This is definitely the defining game of the season.

Do you know when he was rostered? If I had to guess I'd say it was after '03, and therefore he has one left.

Has he learned nothing from last off season? Chemistry is such overrated garbage. Tell the 05 White Sox, 04 Red Sox, 03 Marlins, 02 Angels and the 96-2000 Yankees that. why? do you know for a fact that they had great 'chemistry'? The empirical evidence suggests they got along well, which helped their performance as a team. What evidence is that? I can give you the 04 BoSox got along well, but the 03 Marlins and 02 Angels?

Murton had the best numbers of his career this year and didn't crack a .200 IsoP. I think it's really unlikely he puts up a .230 in '06.

.275/.340/.410? I suck at this stuff.

Lee may have closed a hole in his swing causing those extra BABIP hits to go for extra bases, but to me that only means his regression could be even harder. Besides, his BABIP was 20 points luckier than it should have been even with his LD%, which isn't guaranteed to carry over. I really think we have a great opportunity to get a great haul for him while his value is highest, but I certainly won't weep if we hang on to him.

I'd consider that, but Nomar on offense is more of a gamble at 3B. At his best he's slightly above average for a 3B, and if he doesn't perform up to expectations we're below average there. Also, if he has another injury, finding acceptable 3B replacement for an extended period is more difficult than at SS. You're right that Aramis is also an injury risk, but Nomar has proven to be more all-or-nothing with injuries, while Aramis is more of a nagging-type borderline DL injury guy(subject to change of course, injuries can escalate into worse injuries). Still, worth considering to try and get Drew and Bradley.

Huge game at Colorado for Mizzou. Baylor at home and a trip to K-State afterwards, while Colorado travels to Iowa State and comes home to Nebraska. Tying Colorado and holding the tiebreaker over them would be monumentous. Hopefully good Brad Smith shows up this week.

LA gets: Lowell, D. Lee, maybe Pierre FLA gets: Walker, LA pitching prospect, Patterson(if Pierre is in deal) Cubs get: Castillo, Bradley, Drew Sign Konerko or trade for Overbay. Finding a capable 1B after getting that talent is much easier than finding multiple quality outfielders.

Pierre struggled to outproduce Patterson in his(their) good seasons. His inability to hit for extra bases hurts him, his mediocre to poor stolen base percentage drags down his OBP's effectiveness, and he's a poor defender. If we're going to gamble on a CF returning to form after a crappy 2005, why not do it with the younger and better defender who doesn't cost you any players? I cannot believe that Patterson vs. Pierre is even coming up. Patterson cannot compare to Hairston Jr., much less Pierre, 1) "In their good seasons"- well CPatt has had one. And Pierre has had many. In their bad season, Pierre still managed to hit .276 and steal 57 bases. Pattterson managed to be arguably the worst offensive player in all of baseball. 2) You are rigging the stats by taking into account slugging pct. The Cubs need a leadoff man. I don't care how many home runs Pierre hits. We all know he's going to have a crappy SLG%. I care that he gets on base. Patterson will NEVER touch Pierre in OBP. Just because CPatt can hit a bunch of solo shots late in meaningless games really does nothing for me. For me, there is no comparison. 3) The highest OBP CPatt has even put up is .329. That's it. Even in the minors he couldn't do much better. Pierre has been above it, usually WELL above that in 5 of the last 6 years. If CPatt is anywhere near CF this year, I'll be upset. I'm fine with Walker as a leadoff guy, we don't need to overpay for a subpar player because he's a "leadoff hitter". WARP2 Patterson: 2.9 in 2003(projects to 6.0 with the amount of PA's Pierre had), 4.8 in 2004 Pierre: 4.2 in '03, 4.9 in '04 The Runs Created numbers support this as well, but I don't have the time at the moment to get them, I'll edit later. I really don't know what WARP2 means, so I can't really comment much on that. But if you're saying that we shouldn't overpay for Pierre, that's fine. We shouldn't overpay for anyone. But no matter what WARP2 means, I can't possibly see how any comparision between Patterson and Pierre is even close. Pierre only beat CPatt 4.9 to 4.8 this year? Can you honestly say that Pierre's .276 Average only beat Patterson's .250 OBP by that much? Well whatever those numbers mean, I just don't buy them. Maybe you can explain. The Cubs were near the bottom again in OBP, and near the top in slugging and home runs. I don't see how it makes sense giving Patterson another shot. He put up a .254 OBP this year. Ouch. WARP is Wins Above Replacement Player The 4.9 to 4.8 is 2004. My comparison of the two was their good seasons, and both were very bad this past year(Patterson obviously being worse). I'm not campaigning for Patterson to be in CF next year, I'm one of the biggest Milton Bradley proponent's around here. On the other hand, I don't think it would be as bad an idea as some to put him there if the necessary improvements are made elsewhere(highly unlikely). My point is that Pierre isn't that great either, and I wouldn't be thrilled with either in CF. Even less so with Pierre given age, defense, and cost situations.

Pierre struggled to outproduce Patterson in his(their) good seasons. His inability to hit for extra bases hurts him, his mediocre to poor stolen base percentage drags down his OBP's effectiveness, and he's a poor defender. If we're going to gamble on a CF returning to form after a crappy 2005, why not do it with the younger and better defender who doesn't cost you any players? I cannot believe that Patterson vs. Pierre is even coming up. Patterson cannot compare to Hairston Jr., much less Pierre, 1) "In their good seasons"- well CPatt has had one. And Pierre has had many. In their bad season, Pierre still managed to hit .276 and steal 57 bases. Pattterson managed to be arguably the worst offensive player in all of baseball. 2) You are rigging the stats by taking into account slugging pct. The Cubs need a leadoff man. I don't care how many home runs Pierre hits. We all know he's going to have a crappy SLG%. I care that he gets on base. Patterson will NEVER touch Pierre in OBP. Just because CPatt can hit a bunch of solo shots late in meaningless games really does nothing for me. For me, there is no comparison. 3) The highest OBP CPatt has even put up is .329. That's it. Even in the minors he couldn't do much better. Pierre has been above it, usually WELL above that in 5 of the last 6 years. If CPatt is anywhere near CF this year, I'll be upset. I'm fine with Walker as a leadoff guy, we don't need to overpay for a subpar player because he's a "leadoff hitter". WARP2 Patterson: 2.9 in 2003(projects to 6.0 with the amount of PA's Pierre had), 4.8 in 2004 Pierre: 4.2 in '03, 4.9 in '04 The Runs Created numbers support this as well, but I don't have the time at the moment to get them, I'll edit later.

I don't think Epstein's resignation has anything to do with the stats v. scouts issue. DePo got a raw deal, but I haven't followed the situation to see if it was just fan backlash or philosophical differences.

Pierre struggled to outproduce Patterson in his(their) good seasons. His inability to hit for extra bases hurts him, his mediocre to poor stolen base percentage drags down his OBP's effectiveness, and he's a poor defender. If we're going to gamble on a CF returning to form after a crappy 2005, why not do it with the younger and better defender who doesn't cost you any players?

But only if they ate a large portion of his contract. I don't see why they would need to eat a "large" portion, or any portion for that matter. He has 3 years at 10 million a year left. That isn't burdensome by any means. He can play RF, LF, or CF so he gives us the option at looking at multiple ways to build the team. I think it is more likely the Dodgers will look to deal Bradley, but if the cost in players wasn't prohibitive, I'd take on Drew and the entire contract. FYI, it's 4 years at 11 million per left. I'd love Drew or Bradley.

They're in so much trouble that they will probably win the Central Division by only 10-12 games next year. Their policy of overspending for 1 player and hurting the overall team should hasn't seemed to hurt them the last few seasons. When last seen, the Cards were packing their cars after the Stros buried them. How did that Larry Walker deal work out for you? First of all, Cards is really stupid. Second of all, There's not one of us who wouldn't have wanted the Cards' success this year. The playoffs are a crapshoot, losing in them doesn't make you inferior, especially coming from a fan of a team who missed the playoffs. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure the Walker deal worked out fine for them. They got him for basically nothing, and at a discount, and now I don't think they have to pay his buyout since he retired. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.