David

:-s

As much as I hate Mariotti referring to us as "Cubdom," I love this quote from his column today. Winter needs to end. NOW...

Hah. I wonder if the "100% Roberts will be traded" report was a false leak to out him.

In case you guys don't routinely visit the Tribune's sports site, I figured I'd pass these along... Cubs' return to playoffs under construction Warning, that one's Phil Rogers...Still, it's about baseball Piniella more familiar with Cubs roster in 2nd year Sizing up the Cubs' rotation Scott Eyre on his ADD Mariotti - Only Cubs can warm Chillcago Even though I think he sometimes writes decent pieces (like his Pro-Cuban stuff), I can't stand Mariotti's annoying puns. Wow. Spring reality check Wanted to toss in Bruce, too, but nothing from him today. At least, not yet.

Look at Greene's splits away from PetCo park. A case can be made that, for a SS, he's actually quite a bit better than average to below average at the plate when he's not playing at the best pitchers park in baseball. He's a fly-ball hitter and that park just is not kind to his numbers. Or he was better on the road because he likes when people are yelling at him and hassling him. Or he doesnt feel pressure on the road like he does at home. No one knows. I agree that PetCo is a harder park to hit HR's in, but no one is for certain that he would put up his road numbers all the time if he was on the Cubs. Very nice. Using my own argument against me. haha.... But seriously, I think, while those others could also be possible explanations, given the fact that PetCo is clearly the equivalent of a Coors Field for pitching, and the fact that Greene is such an extreme fly-ball hitter, as well as the stats that support the possibility (which, as you said, might be explained by something else), that there's a good possibility that you could find a diamond in the rough with Greene and that there's a good chance that his numbers would improve significantly if he got out of there. Wow, that's probably the longest sentence I've ever written. I'm not sure that it's a run-on, though.

Look at Greene's splits away from PetCo park. A case can be made that, for a SS, he's actually quite a bit better than average to below average at the plate when he's not playing at the best pitchers park in baseball. He's a fly-ball hitter and that park just is not kind to his numbers.

And Greene's power and top shelf defense wouldn't make our team better? He would make us better, but I think Roberts would make us even more better. I dont think we need a low average, low OBP, low in the batting order HR guy on this team. I think we need a High average, high obp, lots of speed top of the order guy. And this is where the problem with fixating on lineup positioning lies. This is the point everyone is trying to make. You don't take Roberts & Theriot over DeRosa & Greene because Roberts & Theriot fits more nicely in some pre-conceived ideas about lineup roles.

Oops, you're wrong again. How can I be wrong on my opinion? I think I know what I want. And if I would rather have Roberts and Theriot then thats a fact. I cant be wrong about that. I would like to have Roberts and DeRosa, but I dont think they would move Mark to SS. The fact may be that you want what you want. The fact also might be that what you want is misguided.

Question... why do you fixate so much on OBP but not on SLG at all? OBP is extremely important...slightly more important than SLG, actually. But SLG is also very important (in terms of the more traditional stats) in terms of determining a player's offensive worth. Almost as important as OBP. And seriously. Greene & DeRosa > Theriot & Roberts Do you realize how much better Greene is than Theriot in every facet of the game? Roberts over DeRosa is a nice upgrade (in fact, I've made the case on here that it's a bigger upgrade than some people want to give credit for), but not nearly as significant as Greene over Theriot.

Who wouldn't be? That's like 2004-2006 Barrett with good defense. Don't even put Barrett and Defense in the same sentence. My god was he a butcher. I don't think I've ever seen a player just mentally and physically lose it in the span of one season, in his prime. It was actually sad to see, because he's the type of player you pull for. Yea, that was kind of my point. Not sure if you're arguing or agreeing with me, lol.

Why is it ridiculous? Leadoff is not a team need. I agree with you that the skills he does possess would improve the team. Again though, it has nothing to do with him batting leadoff. If the Cubs acquire Roberts and bat him second behind Soriano, this team will still be better. Basically, with this whole thing, I'm trying to figure out if you like Roberts more because you think he can leadoff or because he's simply a better player than we currently have starting at his position. While I can't say whether or not a player like that is available, a player like that does exist and has been discussed quite a few times on this board. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking he (and others will) thought the .330 was BA, not OBP.

Pessimistic? You think my prediction was pessimistic for a rookie catcher? You're talking about him putting up superstar (for a catcher) numbers in his first season. That's a little unreasonable. I'm not saying he CAN'T do it. I'm saying it's pretty unreasonable to expect that he will. You're setting yourself up to be disappointed even if he has a very solid rookie season.

Who wouldn't be? That's like 2004-2006 Barrett with good defense.

I agree, no one knows if he would have still hit 3 HR's in the 5 hole, and I agree that he needs protection behind him, but that is why Geovany Soto will be there. This guy will prove to be a monster behind Soriano. In my opinion Soto will hit 25-30 HR's and bat .300. This is good protection for him. I'm as optimistic about Soto as anyone, but I think that's a bit much to expect from him. Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to see him do it. That type of production over what we had last year from catcher would likely be enough alone to propel us over the 90 win mark. I'd say .275/.350/.475 (maybe 15-20 HR) would be a more reasonable "optimistic" expectation of Geo.

The bolded is a load of crap and does not meaningfully contribute to this discussion in any way. I especially like the implication that "play[ing] defense and react[ing] to the mental aspects of the game" might contribute more to winning games than the evil pitching and hitting stats people focus on.

I think it's a lame excuse. Give the guy enough AB's in a different spot in the lineup and he'll get comfortable. If he had his way he'd still be a second basemen. Players don't like change...Nothing new here. He'll be fine out of the leadoff spot. Yep. Going into 2006, he wasn't comfortable anywhere but 2B. Then in 2007, after we tried him out in CF, we moved him to LF, because he was more comfortable there. I felt like the leg injury was convenient excuse to move him back. Once he started hitting, there was no way they'd move him again. This year he should be 100%, but him playing LF is set in stone.

Base-stealing is overrated. Granted, Roberts does it at a good enough success rate that he's actually making an offensive contribution by doing it; he's very good at it and is one of the rare examples of someone whose base-stealing ability is actually helpful. That said, that doesn't mean we need it. Teams don't need speed or base-stealers. It's a luxury that's nice to have if all other needs are filled adequately.

FWIW, I don't completely dismiss the possibility that Soriano is uncomfortable anywhere but #1 in the batting order and that his own confidence affects his ability to hit. I just don't think that it's necessarily the most likely explanation for the splits, and obviously, I don't think it should be assumed that it is. A lot of people just take the idea that Soriano can't hit anywhere else in the lineup as truth.

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't. Go read what I said. I said that 2006 made his leadoff splits look more pronounced, particularly in terms of OBP (because of all the IBBs he got). And seriously, stop trying to put words into my mouth just because, in your head, you misinterpreted what I said. First assuming that I had no idea that Soriano had hit leadoff before 2006, now this. Here is your exact quote. Your point about his 2006 numbers being more pronounced DIRECTLY followed your statement about the Soriano "crap" needing to stop. I don't see how I was wrong to assume that you were using the second sentence to qualify the first. Way to omit rest of the quote. And you're right. I worded it too strongly.

Why are you so worked up? Causational link? All that means is that one thing causes the other. Cause and effect. Chillax. Agree to disagree.

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't. Go read what I said. I said that 2006 made his leadoff splits look more pronounced, particularly in terms of OBP (because of all the IBBs he got). And seriously, stop trying to put words into my mouth just because, in your head, you misinterpreted what I said. First assuming that I had no idea that Soriano had hit leadoff before 2006, now this.

By the way, the purden of proof was just as much on you for making the statement that Soriano's number dropoffs had nothing to do with where he batted during those times. You have done ntohing to prove that or defend it, other than saying that 2006 was the reason his splits are pronounced, which is untrue. If someone knew a site where I could view career totals while omitting a season, we'd be able to see that the pronounced didfference is still there. If you're going to make a claim like that, then yeah, I'd say the burden of proof is on you for it. I need to prove that the best year of his career, which was pretty [damn good], which he was hitting leadoff for most of, makes his overall leadoff numbers look better than they do without that year? Seriously? Even if I show the splits, you're free to disagree with what "significantly" means, because it's a subjective term. So, I give up. As for the bolded, no, it wasn't. I don't have to prove that a causational link doesn't exist. It should be pretty obvious why this is insane. I could make up a bunch of things and ask you to prove they don't exist. Look, it's similar to clutch hitting. I recently read that Mark Grace was statistically the best clutch hitter of the 90's (or maybe even ever.. I don't know... something like that). I don't believe that clutch hitting exists (at least, not in the sense that people think it does) and would sooner attribute his better numbers in these situations to pure coincidence or chance (or just other factors - like he was just a good, smart hitter who did well in these instances) than to think he actually did better in those situations because they were so-called clutch situations. Edited..

What are you even talking about? I don't even get why you're so worked up. This reminds me of when that dude kept saying that posters could criticize Dusty all they wanted because he probably got more gals than they did.

I don't even know why I'm wasting time arguing about this. I'd be just fine with Soriano staying in the leadoff role. Logical fallacies like this strike a nerve with me, especially when I already, in principle, strongly disagree with the potential link being proposed. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that a player's spot in the lineup could cause him to perform better or worse. I prefer to look at other potential causes first. You disagree with that. That's fine with me.

First you said the only reason his splits were so bad was because of his big 2006. Now it's "well, splits don't convince me". The 2006 argument was weak. As for reasons to why he bats better in that spot, it's very simple. I'll copy and paste what I just said a few posts ago. Honestly, why is it so hard to understand why his numbers go down? You're doing it again. Splits merely show the correlation. The splits would HAVE to be there for there to be any correlation. That doesn't mean that hitting leadoff was the CAUSE of the difference. And yes, the career year in 2006 makes those splits significantly more pronounced. What isn't true about that?