17 Seconds

Ugh. Did I ever say that Roberts isn't better at getting on base than Roberts? No, I didn't. He made an extremely ambigous claim that was untrue. If he said "ROberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season" I would have had no problem with is whatsoever, because that is a fact. Anyways, I thinks it's kind of silly to compare the OBP of Roberts and Soriano, when Roberts would be replacing Derosa, and not Alfsonso. Yes, I realize it's because of the leadoff argument, but leadoff is not a position. Second base is a position. Let's say for argument's sake that the Cubs get Roberts, have him hit leadoff, and then next season everybody puts up idnetical numbers to what they did last season (since those are the numbers wrigley23 is clearly discussing anyways). If that's the case, we don't add 40 on base percentage points to the overall lineup, we add 6. How much of an impact switching those points over to the leadoff spot has is open for debate, but people need to stop acting as if we'd be adding a ton of on base percentage to the lineup, because that is false.

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano. Roberts OBP: .377 Soriano: .337 I'm aware of where their numbers were last season. He didn't say "Roberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season", he said "Roberts gets on base 40 points higher than Soriano". Look at the career numbers. OK, come on now . . . I'm enjoying this all as much as anyone - but he's got you here. You called him out, and now it's been proven that he was actually right. Just give him a "touche" and move on . . . Do you really think I wasn't aware of the OBP stats of those 2 guys last season? Please. With how much this has been debated this offseason, the stats of Roberts/Soriano/Derosa are etched into my mind for eternity. What he said was not an accurate statement. He doesn't "get on base 40 points higher than Soriano". He did last season. What about the season before? Kahlil Greene outhomered Aramis last season. So would it be an accurate statement to say that "Greene hits for more power than Ramirez"? I certainly don't think so. I really don't know what you know . . . but I think I'll go with O_O's line that "either interpretation is reasonable." W23'S claim of fact was backed up with, um . . . FACTS! Career OBP numbers Roberts- .351 Soriano- .327 .351-.327= .24 (not .40) There, now I backed it up with facts too. Happy?

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano. Roberts OBP: .377 Soriano: .337 I'm aware of where their numbers were last season. He didn't say "Roberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season", he said "Roberts gets on base 40 points higher than Soriano". Look at the career numbers. OK, come on now . . . I'm enjoying this all as much as anyone - but he's got you here. You called him out, and now it's been proven that he was actually right. Just give him a "touche" and move on . . . Do you really think I wasn't aware of the OBP stats of those 2 guys last season? Please. With how much this has been debated this offseason, the stats of Roberts/Soriano/Derosa are etched into my mind for eternity. What he said was not an accurate statement. He doesn't "get on base 40 points higher than Soriano". He did last season. What about the season before? Kahlil Greene outhomered Aramis last season. So would it be an accurate statement to say that "Greene hits for more power than Ramirez"? I certainly don't think so.

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano. Roberts OBP: .377 Soriano: .337 I'm aware of where their numbers were last season. He didn't say "Roberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season", he said "Roberts gets on base 40 points higher than Soriano". Look at the career numbers.

How can you possibly make those statements, and then be in favor of overpaying for Roberts? YOU just said that we have lots of holes. You're right. Guess what? Second base is not one of those holes. So, you think it's cool to overpay for a position that doesn't need upgrading, when we clearly have other holes that need to be upgraded to be a legit contender? So what happens if Hendry gives it all up for ROberts. Then what happens when we need a shortstop, starting pitcher, center fielder, or bullpen help at the deadline? We'll have nothing decent to offer in trades at all. Is this really that hard for you to understand? I have a good idea. How about we use our limited trade pieces to upgrade positions that actually need it? Pretty crazy idea, huh?

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano.

There was an article a week or (can't remember where) about Murton and he didn't actually say he wanted to be traded, but it was pretty obvious. He kept talking about how he likes Chicago, but feels that he'll never get an opportunity to take it to the next level here and basically that he wouldn't mind a trade. Definitely sounded like he'd like to be moved.

I think going after Roberts was a waste of time to begin with.

The playoffs are a crapshoot, for the most part. Having a "leadoff" hitter wont change that. Having another very good SP might, but that's about the only thing. As presently constructed though, the Cubs are a slight favorite to make the playoffs, and then we have about a 12.5% chance once we get in, just like everybody else. I never said anything about getting a leadoff hitter. I wasn't really talking about Roberts, as I don't really want him. I'm talking more about shortstop and the rotation. I agree that the playoffs are a crapshoot, but relying on that when building a team seems like a bad philosophy to me. "Yeha, we definitely have holes, but we aren't worried about them. The playoffs are a crapshoot!" To me it makes sense to do the best you can to buold a team better than the opposition, not rely on luck.

That's what we have the trade deadline for. I can almost guarantee that if the Cubs make the playoffs, you'll see new faces on the playoff roster. Why is it acceptable to wait until the trade deadline to make improvements that you know are neccessary? So we can pay more? Because it takes two teams to make a deal. If the other team says no, you can't make a trade. No team finishes the season with the same 25 it starts with. I know, but there are always guys available. Renteria, for example, would have been an enormous upgrade and he was had for realtively cheap. There are always players available.

That's what we have the trade deadline for. I can almost guarantee that if the Cubs make the playoffs, you'll see new faces on the playoff roster. Why is it acceptable to wait until the trade deadline to make improvements that you know are neccessary? So we can pay more?

Does anybody actually think this team as is can do anything serious in the playoffs? Because I certainly don't. I think this is about an 87 win team and not close to a realistic World Series contender.

Apparently Pie or Colvin won't be neccessary to make a Roberts trade happen. http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-osqa222,0,1982196.story

Stop lying. Lou never said that. I listened to the interview and all he said was that he's consider possibly moving Soriano down if they made a trade, which is what he's been saying all offseason.

Nevermind, I didn't know they were good friends. Here is the video of that http://www.baltimoresun.com/video/?slug=bal-millar0221-video

Millar rips Dempster apart. “If Dempster threw it at my ribs, that means he’s trying to go down and away. He has no command, no control, of any fastball he throws, so he can’t tell anybody where he’s going to throw the baseball. The young man made the (2000) All-Star team with the Fighting Fish (Florida Marlins) because they had to take somebody. The guy’s lived off the 2000 All-Star stuff for many, many, many years and I’m tired of hearing about it. “He watched the ‘04 World Series. He knows who the Cowboy Up guy is because he was on the couch that year. He hadn’t been to the playoffs, he hadn’t been to the big dance. He was barbequing with his friends and family that year.” Ouch. That seemed a bit unneccessary.

Unless Boston eats most of his contract, then no, he can not be had for extra cheap. Why would we want a bad player who whines if he doesn't get playing time? That seems like a terrible mix.

Ahh yes, the Mandatory Marquis Meltdown, or as I like to call it, the "mmm".

Hits are more likely to occur by chance while walks are not? I completely disagree. Walks are WAYYYY more about luck than hits are. You get a hit if your a good hitter end of story. You take a walk if the pitcher happens to throw you balls. that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. I find it hilarious that this guy is a baseball coach. HOW IN THE HELL DO HITS OCCUR BECAUSE OF LUCK??!!!! ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS RIGHT NOW?!!!! I'M DONE WITH THIS ****. YOU GUYS HAVE TO BE THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE IVE EVER COME ACROSS. BATTING AVERAGE IS A VERY IMPORTANT STAT WHEN DETERMINING HOW GOOD A HITTER IS. NO ONE HAS A HIGH BATTING AVERAGE BECAUSE OF LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was referring the the "you take a walk if the pitcher happens to throw you balls" stuff. I don't like to harp too much on Moneyball, but there's a chapter in that book discussing that exactly mentality about walks and how early statisticians ridiculously denied that taking a walk could be due to the skill of the player. The chapter pretty much talks about how stupid they were.

Hits are more likely to occur by chance while walks are not? I completely disagree. Walks are WAYYYY more about luck than hits are. You get a hit if your a good hitter end of story. You take a walk if the pitcher happens to throw you balls. that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. I find it hilarious that this guy is a baseball coach.

I literally read nothing after this statement. I love it.

Alright guys, who's ready for the weekly interesting but ultimately worthless bigbird info? Here we go again.

I'm officially done with wrigley23 and deuce. It's like having a first grader tell the teacher that 6 divided by 3 equals 3, the teacher taking 20 minutes to explain why that's not true, and then the kid responding with "nah, it's 3".

How many of those at bats with runners on occurred when he was hitting in the middle of the order as a regular? Huh? That's irrelevant. He struggles with men on. He always has and always will. So, where will he get the most at-bats with runners on? The middle of the order, of course.

If any adjustments need to be made he can make them, just like the move to the OF. HE DOESN'T HIT WELL WITH RUNNERS ON BASE. That can change! It's not like it is much of a different skill to hit with runners on base. It shouldnt be any different than hitting with no one on. It can easily be coincidence to why he doesnt hit well with runners on. He also is a way more patient hitter with runners on. He has more walks with runners on base over the past 3 years than he does with no one on, and thats in half the at bats. This can lead to more stolen bases by him as well. Hitting in different spots in the order shouldnt affect the player. You see players get moved around all the time. Yes, you're right. Those 1679 at bats spread out over a 9 year career were all a coincidence. At 32 years old, I'm sure that's suddenly going to change. Well done.