Transmogrified Tiger

Lofton's BABIP: 2003: .302 2004: .291 2005: .365 Career(thru 2004): .322 That BABIP drops to career norms(which may be generous considering the previous years and that he's 38 next year) and his line looks like .290/.350/.375*/.725. *.375 is max SLG, and therefore .725 is max OPS I would like Milton Bradley to play CF please.

Dubois has played all this year at 26, and spent 4 years(not exactly an eternity) in the minor leagues. The comparisons are there, Dusty handled their successes nearly the exact same way. Fortunately, Murton hasn't faltered yet so we haven't seen what he'll do if that happens. In baseball terms, it is an eternity. There is a reason why Dubois didn't see his first real big league action until 26, sorry for the misinformation I provided stating he's 27. Maybe Murton hasn't faltered because he's just better than Dubois. I think some just had too high of expectations for Dubois. I still think Murton is in a different class than Dubois. The expectations are pretty much irrelevant. I'm not trying to make a point that Dubois and Murton would have similar results, I'm trying to show how the two rookie OFs were treated, and how Dusty pats himself on the back for their success(despite hindering them), yet doesn't take any blame for their failures.

Wrong. Some people would cry foul, true, but others would not. We had this discussion 2 years ago. And again, we're not talking about benching Lee or Zambrano. It's benching Hairston/Patterson or Neifi for crying out loud. Rival teams should thank us for giving those spots a chance at success.

Dubois has played all this year at 26, and spent 4 years(not exactly an eternity) in the minor leagues. The comparisons are there, Dusty handled their successes nearly the exact same way. Fortunately, Murton hasn't faltered yet so we haven't seen what he'll do if that happens.

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out. It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth. If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on. I know I wouldn't want a system where I don't get blamed for failure, and get credit for success. There's nothing that disproves this circular logic that's been proved several times. Dubois had early success, Dusty had praise but always some criticisms that somehow justified him not playing. When Dubois finally got to play, Dusty said that this was the plan all along, and that he's been trying to put him in the best situations to succeed. In other words, good job Dusty, Dubois wouldn't have done that well without you. Ridiculous. Then when Dubois struggles, there's not a mention of said "system", and he gets replaced much quicker than Hollandsworth did while putting up similar numbers. Same thing with Murton. Has early success, Dusty says good job, that he's putting Murton in the best situations to succeed. Again, hooray Dusty. Murton continues to hit, all other options sans Hairston are removed, and Murton splits time with Hairston, with all praise for Murton being tempered with "he can't hit for power(paraphrased)". Now Murton keeps hitting, and it's a result of Dusty's plan all along. Sorry if I don't buy that.

I haven't watched any of the game, but he is 2 for 4. :| Oh he is? Ah, well based off of the last page of posts prior to mine, I just assumed that he was 0-fer and stunk in the field. Well, good for him. Gotta get that trade value up. Well, he's 6 for his last 17 with 4 doubles. Baby steps I guess.

I haven't watched any of the game, but he is 2 for 4. :|

Barry being on Roids takes him out of consideration for best hitter of all-time, but he's the best hitter of this era if not more than that. I'm not sure I'd go as far as 70 years, but he's still pretty good at swinging the stick.

And you picked the smallest guy in the group?

I don't know his splits, but Greenberg is a lefty also. Interestingly, for this year, Lofton's average is higher against lefty's, although his OBP is worse because he's only had one walk against lefty's. I asked in the minor league forum a little while back. Greenberg doesn't have much of a platoon split.

You have a truly dizzying intellect.

I <3 McNabb and Owens

We're not talking about swapping out Derrek Lee for McClain here. It's Cedeno for Neifi, and Murton for Hairston/Patterson. There's no dropoff there, but Dusty has said ever since the beginning of the month that we owe it to other teams to try to win, like Murton or Cedeno are scrubs. It's the same rhetoric before and after Murton had success and Cedeno got hurt. Now there's no one really worth playing, except maybe Theriot on occasion. This fact doesn't change the fact that Dusty's whole mindset is beyond dumb, and hurting the ballclub.

People didn't want Jones because his contract was completely disproportionate to his performance. It's one thing to gamble 5-7 million on Pierre rebounding in his contract year, it's quite another to count on Jones to "blow it up" with the contractural commitment he has.

Are the Cubs worse fundamentally than other clubs? While my gut says yes, I can't say for sure. I can say that I don't care if other teams suck fundamentally. If there exist correctable situations on the team I root for, they ought to be corrected. Its the pattern of fundamental breakdowns that really galls me. The same mistakes occurring in all too regular fashion. Those kinds of mistakes speak to the coaching staff's ability to address team short comings, or the management's willingness to bring in fundamentally unsound players. Those characteristics, if at all accurate, are troublesome to me. The notion that "everyone is doing it" is not a plausible defense to me. I think that goes back to what Goony was saying. Everyone screws up. Sometimes it costs them games, and at the end of the year if you're on the short end of the stick then it sticks out even more. EDIT: Everything is correctable. But people are human, and what I'm trying to say is that the Cubs aren't any worse than anyone else in that aspect, so therefore there may not be a lot that can be done about it, or it's not worth putting too much effort correcting it since it's not putting us at a disadvantage.

It's not irrelevant if people want to try and fiction a history of Dusty Baker as a positional prospect wrecker. What do you think of the positional prospect situations since he's been with the Cubs? Hill getting sent to AAA over Lenny Harris, Choi/Karros/Simon, Dubois and Murton/Holla, Lawton, and Hairston? I'm genuinely curious, I don't recall you ever saying anything about those circumstances.

I don't think anyone is saying the only reason the Cubs are a bad team is because of fundamentals. It's just one of several reasons and they are a bad fundamental team. Are they a bad fundamental team? If Prior and Wood were healthy and effective, putting us in the WC lead, would anyone be talking about how we are a bad fundamental team? Yes, they would. Look no further than 2003. If you recall, Cub pitchers couldn't field a 16" mushball. There were various baserunning errors even before the the Alou debacle of 2004. And, look at 2004. For the most part, the Cubs were in the hunt. But, criticisms rained down on the team for their poor fundamentals, costing the Cubs the best analyst on the market. I think both immediately previous years answer your question. Might be selective memory on my part, but I really don't recall a pining for fundamentals as this year has produced. Last year is kinda what I'm talking about too. Were the problems really fundamentals? Would any of those concerns been there if the team hadn't collapsed? Half the time people have very different definitions of the word, which has already been shown in this thread. I'm not trying to say that the team was devoid of any fundamental mistakes. I'm just saying that they aren't the problem that people make them out to be, partly because everyone has a different idea of what they are, and partly because fundamental mishaps by nature are far easier to remember than fundamental successes. Again I'll question, are the Cubs any worse than any other team fundamentally? I say I don't think they are.

I don't think anyone is saying the only reason the Cubs are a bad team is because of fundamentals. It's just one of several reasons and they are a bad fundamental team. Are they a bad fundamental team? If Prior and Wood were healthy and effective, putting us in the WC lead, would anyone be talking about how we are a bad fundamental team? It seems like we remember the fundamental screwups more because by nature, fundamentals should be taken for granted almost in their execution. Therefore, when the team as a whole falls short, those are the times that come to mind, and the team is labelled bad fundamentally. Like I said in my previous post, I'm not so sure that the Cubs are bad fundamentally compared to the league.

Fundamentals to me seem like a convenient scapegoat when a team isn't woefully bad at a certain spot to blame. I don't think many teams worse than the Cubs are lamenting poor fundamentals, they're ranting about a lack of offense, or pitching, or bullpen. Do the Cubs really make more "fundamental" mistakes than other teams? I'm not sure they do.

I hate it when people say the offense is just "waiting for a home run". Hate hate hate it. Otherwise that was well said.

Thank god for the injection of some objectivity. Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz? Notwithstanding the fact that there is room for debate that these three are "solid relievers", as Tim said, the discussion is obviously directed at position players. That is a common concession that is made in the argument about Dusty's bias against young players. Stop trying to change the subject. Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture? Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years. Are they better than Eric Karros? Todd Hollandsworth? Glenallen Hill? Steve Scarsone?

I know I'm late responding, but that has to be one of the worst ideas I've read in a long time. We end up giving Walker, Hill, Dopirak, and cash for Crain and Pierre ??!?! No way. Walker is more valuable than any of those mentioned. Pierre is overrated. Just sign Kenny Lofton. His OBP is better than Pierre and he's cheaper. If you're trading those players, you better end up with more than Pierre and Crain. Wow...just reading that has left me nearly speechless. Then be speechless. Juan Pierre had an off year this year. So did Pat Burrell and Morgan Ensberg last year, would you want them in 2005 here? The two years prior to this, Pierre posted OBPs of 361 and 374. He had over 200 hits both years, stole 65 and 45 bases, and struck out a mere 35 times each season. Oh yeah, and he just turned 28 years old. Naw, Cubs couldn't use someone like that. :roll: Meanwhile, Walker is a bad attitude big mouth with lousy defense and no speed. He makes only $2.75MM, whoop-dee-do. He can take his disgusted bat flip to his sixth big league team and we won't miss a beat. The Cubs need to improve their team defense, speed, OBP and hitting for contact. I think if (for example) you give the 2B job to Cedeno, you gain speed and defense, likely give up little in OBP (based on an admittedly low sample size), and only sacrifice IsoP in exchange. And save nearly $2.5MM. I do that. Meanwhile, Pierre solves a need, and you'd buying him cheap based on his off-year. My my, what a concept, buy low instead of buy high for once. I'm not saying I'd be unhappy with Lofton, I just don't think he's going to be available. I like the idea of Pierre and Furcal hitting 1-2 at the top of my lineup, it would completely change the character of this team. Walker OTOH, is more of the same. Dump him. This completely ignores that Walker is a superior baseball player compared to Juan Pierre in just about every aspect. OBP? Pierre with a slight advantage(assuming that he returns to his career norms after having this season in his prime), that is completely overwhelmed by Walker's advantage in SLG. You talk about improving team defense, yet argue for Pierre, who's as bad if not worse defensively relative to his position than Walker.

I haven't noticed, I'm too busy waiting for the Hoops/Cuse grudge match.

How can the Tribe have someone as terrible as Broussard playing 1B for them? Doesn't make sense with the talent in the system.