17 Seconds

No, it doesn't need to stop. You're ignoring his years with the Yankees at leadoff. Furthermore, you're ignoring his past shows a history of struggling in RISP situations. When it comes to moving Soriano around, I view it as a choice. You can choose 1. To have a .890 OPS #1 hitter. 2. To have an .810-.820 OPS #3-5 hitter. I choose #1. What does need to stop is trying to convince ourselves that Soriano is something he isn't. I don't know why we have to be so stubborn on this issue. You don't see the Indians trying to force Casey Blake into an RBI slot when he isn't that guy. You didn't see the Red Sox pushing Bill Mueller to hit 2nd when he was much more comfortable 8th. But people here won't be happy until we see Soriano hit .260 with a .310 OBP and 28 home runs, his meaningless 100 RBI, and his near-record LOB total. Only then will we be getting our $17 million a year worth. What is the difference between Brian Roberts hitting 1st and Brian Roberts hitting 2nd? I'd like to know why people have a mental block on this. They start sweating profusely and stammering. "Why... Roberts can't hit 2nd. Because... because... he's a LEADOFF MAN. It would cause a rip in the space-time continuum!" Soriano does his best hitting with the bases empty. I'm merely pointing out that people are incorrectly confusing correlation with causation in the case of Soriano's leadoff splits. It's flawed and faulty logic. No, you made the statement that Soriano's career leadoff numbers were only so much better than his non-leadoff numbers because of a monster year in 2006, which is flat out wrong. Even if Soriano in 2006 only put up the typical numbers he puts up in years where he leads off, the career differences would still be very pronounced. It sounds to me like you were unaware that Soriano had hit leadoff in previous years. Now you're realizing that he did, and are trying to cover it up but saying the above statement, which doesn't even make sense with what you originally said. Actually, you're completely wrong in just about everything you said here. But that's fine. Do you think I just started watching baseball in 2005 or something? Who the hell doesn't know that Soriano hit leadoff with the Yankees? Repeat with me. Correlation =/ causation. It's one of the most common logical fallacies that people fall victim to. Cause and effect. You're completely dodging the real issue. Please explain to me why Soriano's numbers go down when he doesn't bat leadoff.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning. now I understand the problem. I prefer to have a bad team, unlike you, with your good team preferences. Now all makes sense. Jon had a fantastic post about all of this in one of the Soriano threads early last season. He broke it down all beautifully and it showed pretty clearly that there wasn't a significant difference between Soriano's production batting leadoff and elsewhere. Yeah, I definately don't see how that's possible, since all the other numbers pretty clearly show a significant dropoff. Let's see this post. I honestly don't see why people find it so hard to believe that he's not as good in the middle of the order. Even if you didn't look at numbers and just watched him play, you could see why there is a problem with him batting there. In his career he has been a very bad hitter with runners on, and especially runners in scoring position. Compared to his overall career numbers, everything drops dramatically, especially his power. Did any of you actually watch the games last year? Watching him bat in situations with guyson what painful. Breaking ball in the zone- foul Breaking ball in the dirt- strike 2 swinging High fastball- strike 3 swinging So we've established that he's not a good hitter with guys on. So let me think, where would be the worst place to bat him? I know, how about right in the middle of the lineup, so he can come up to bat with runners on all the time! Yeah, that makes no sense to me.

No, it doesn't need to stop. You're ignoring his years with the Yankees at leadoff. Furthermore, you're ignoring his past shows a history of struggling in RISP situations. When it comes to moving Soriano around, I view it as a choice. You can choose 1. To have a .890 OPS #1 hitter. 2. To have an .810-.820 OPS #3-5 hitter. I choose #1. What does need to stop is trying to convince ourselves that Soriano is something he isn't. I don't know why we have to be so stubborn on this issue. You don't see the Indians trying to force Casey Blake into an RBI slot when he isn't that guy. You didn't see the Red Sox pushing Bill Mueller to hit 2nd when he was much more comfortable 8th. But people here won't be happy until we see Soriano hit .260 with a .310 OBP and 28 home runs, his meaningless 100 RBI, and his near-record LOB total. Only then will we be getting our $17 million a year worth. What is the difference between Brian Roberts hitting 1st and Brian Roberts hitting 2nd? I'd like to know why people have a mental block on this. They start sweating profusely and stammering. "Why... Roberts can't hit 2nd. Because... because... he's a LEADOFF MAN. It would cause a rip in the space-time continuum!" Soriano does his best hitting with the bases empty. I'm merely pointing out that people are incorrectly confusing correlation with causation in the case of Soriano's leadoff splits. It's flawed and faulty logic. No, you made the statement that Soriano's career leadoff numbers were only so much better than his non-leadoff numbers because of a monster year in 2006, which is flat out wrong. Even if Soriano in 2006 only put up the typical numbers he puts up in years where he leads off, the career differences would still be very pronounced. It sounds to me like you were unaware that Soriano had hit leadoff in previous years. Now you're realizing that he did, and are trying to cover it up but saying the above statement, which doesn't even make sense with what you originally said.

Please explain to me what Ray Durham has to offer over Derosa.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning. now I understand the problem. I prefer to have a bad team, unlike you, with your good team preferences. Now all makes sense. Once again. you do nothing to back up your claims. Well done. I've provided all that I am able to provide. Which is nothing? Yeah, forgive me for not being overhwhelmed with the possibilty of you being correct.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning. now I understand the problem. I prefer to have a bad team, unlike you, with your good team preferences. Now all makes sense. Once again. you do nothing to back up your claims. Well done.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning.

Please just stop.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Says who? People have only speculated this. I really don't think Soriano would be moved down even if they got Roberts, which at this point seems unlikely anyways. That was an assumption... hence the bolded part. So? You said "would likely", which is untrue. That's like me saying Roberts "would likely" bat cleanup if the Cubs got him. Except that Roberts hitting leadoff over Soriano is likely, while Roberts hitting cleanup isn't. That's my whole point. I don't think Soriano being moved from the leadoff spot would be likely. I think they'd bat Roberts Second.

Says who? People have only speculated this. I really don't think Soriano would be moved down even if they got Roberts, which at this point seems unlikely anyways. That was an assumption... hence the bolded part. So? You said "would likely", which is untrue. That's like me saying Roberts "would likely" bat cleanup if the Cubs got him.

You keep leaving out one key fact: that Utley has proven he can produce in the middle of the lineup. Soriano has not.

Says who? People have only speculated this. I really don't think Soriano would be moved down even if they got Roberts, which at this point seems unlikely anyways.

Derosa got on base just as much as Roberts last season. Derosa isn't being considered hitting leadoff though. You said they need a guy who can get on base.

Derosa got on base just as much as Roberts last season.

Just stop it. If he got Roberts SOriano will probably still bat leadoff. the addition of brob & fuko balance out a lineup by giving it much higher obp, Wait, how does Roberts give the lineup a better OBP than Derosa? Explain that.

I *really* don't think Derosa can be an adequate shortstop at this stage of his career. Not a crack on Derosa, just saying.

Great. If you can swing a deal where all you give up is Murton and Cedeno, then I'm all for it. Anyways, I think giving up Cedeno could hurt this team a lot more than people think. I'm not at all saying I'm a fan of Ronny, but entering the season without a real backup plan for Theriot is a very frightening thought. Entering the season without a real backup plan for Theriot makes Lou more desperate. We saw last season that when he gets desperate, he gets creative, and no clear backup for Theriot gives a decent shot that DeRosa would get more at-bats at SS, which would help even more than Cedeno would there. Derosa as a backup plan for shortstop? Yeah, that sounds like a terrible idea.

Great. If you can swing a deal where all you give up is Murton and Cedeno, then I'm all for it. Anyways, I think giving up Cedeno could hurt this team a lot more than people think. I'm not at all saying I'm a fan of Ronny, but entering the season without a real backup plan for Theriot is a very frightening thought. There are always guys available. I'm not saying we need Jimmy Rollins or something. It's not hard to find an upgrade over someone like Theriot Bullpen help will be needed even less that the upgrade from DeRosa to Roberts. The Cubs already have plenty of people in the bullpen, and even if a reliever or two goes down that will still be the case. I'm not as sold on the bullpen as everyone is. Seems like a lot of quesiton marks. Can Wood stay healthy? Can Marmol continue his torrid pace? Can Howry continue to pitch well? Relievers his age aren't exactly a sure thing. I think it's entirely with the realm of possibilty that we end up needing bullpen help.

Again, it would be great to fill the SS hole, but who, how and where? It's not a luxury to have another good baseball player on the team, which Roberts is. The way I see it, Derosa is always a possibility to fall back into his pre-Texas numbers, which are not good. Roberts is a much better bet to be a real good player, thus making the hole from Theriot's lack of production less of a burden. Renteria over Theriot would have been a much bigger upgrade than Roberts over Derosa. Ok? And what does that have to do with today? Renteria is not available. Roberts likely is. Do you not improve the team because you can't improve it as good as you could have 5 months ago? That makes no sense. Huh? Aren't we discussing ways Hendry could have made this team better in the offseason? Renteria was available after the season was over, when it was clear we needed a shortstop. No, we're talking about ways that Hendry can make the team better today. Right now, the only options seem to be a Roberts trade or to go into the season with the current team. Renteria isn't an option, and it doesn't look like any other quality SS's are either. Given those limitations, does making the Roberts trade make the team better than standing pat and playing with the current team? Exactly. If we're talking about how he could have made the team better in the offseason, there's a lot bigger fish to fry than Renteria. Arod and Andruw were both available for cash. Cabrera was available in a trade. Haren, Bedard, Santana were available. Granted those most of those weren't likely, but neither was a Renteria trade considering it was done like 2 days after the Series. That's a poor comparison. What does Renteria being traded 2 days after the season have anything to do with how likely it was to get him. We had just as good of a chance as the Tigers to get him. I'd like to think that Hendry is aware of how the business works. Anyways, we didn't have a realistic shot at Arod, Andruw for 2/36 is not appealing at all (and we couldn't afford it anyways), we didn't have what it took to get Cabrera (and we don't have a position for him anyways), Santana wouldn't accept a trade to the Cubs (plus we couldn't extend him), and Haren/Bedard got more in trade than we could realistically offer. Renteria was very realistic and was had for relatively cheap.

Again, it would be great to fill the SS hole, but who, how and where? It's not a luxury to have another good baseball player on the team, which Roberts is. The way I see it, Derosa is always a possibility to fall back into his pre-Texas numbers, which are not good. Roberts is a much better bet to be a real good player, thus making the hole from Theriot's lack of production less of a burden. Renteria over Theriot would have been a much bigger upgrade than Roberts over Derosa. Ok? And what does that have to do with today? Renteria is not available. Roberts likely is. Do you not improve the team because you can't improve it as good as you could have 5 months ago? That makes no sense. Huh? Aren't we discussing ways Hendry could have made this team better in the offseason? Renteria was available after the season was over, when it was clear we needed a shortstop. No, we're talking about ways that Hendry can make the team better today. Right now, the only options seem to be a Roberts trade or to go into the season with the current team. Renteria isn't an option, and it doesn't look like any other quality SS's are either. Given those limitations, does making the Roberts trade make the team better than standing pat and playing with the current team? Read my above post. If I had the choice of either getting Roberts right now (for a package that we can expect based on what we've heard), or stand pat and save our guys for later....... then yes, I definitely stand pat. We're going to need ugprades at the deadline.

And just because shortstops might not be avilable right now (which again, I think is probably untrue), that doesn't mean they won't be available at the deadline. I'm afraid that Hendry will overpay for Roberts, leaving him no no decent pieces to use for trades later on. What happens when July rolls around and Theriot is still not getting it done? Or the back of the rotation is a mess? Or we need bullpen help? Or we have big injury problems? Those are all very realistic possibilities and we'll have very little to offer in trades because Hendry will have used it all to fill a position that is already full. Every team has a certain limited amount of resources. It doesn't make any sense to me to use a good chunk of them on something that is not a big need. I'm just saying, if we get Roberts, and then July rolls around and we need upgrading somewhere else but don't have the resources, don't complain.

Again, it would be great to fill the SS hole, but who, how and where? It's not a luxury to have another good baseball player on the team, which Roberts is. The way I see it, Derosa is always a possibility to fall back into his pre-Texas numbers, which are not good. Roberts is a much better bet to be a real good player, thus making the hole from Theriot's lack of production less of a burden. Renteria over Theriot would have been a much bigger upgrade than Roberts over Derosa. Ok? And what does that have to do with today? Renteria is not available. Roberts likely is. Do you not improve the team because you can't improve it as good as you could have 5 months ago? That makes no sense. Huh? Aren't we discussing ways Hendry could have made this team better in the offseason? Renteria was available after the season was over, when it was clear we needed a shortstop.

Again, it would be great to fill the SS hole, but who, how and where? It's not a luxury to have another good baseball player on the team, which Roberts is. The way I see it, Derosa is always a possibility to fall back into his pre-Texas numbers, which are not good. Roberts is a much better bet to be a real good player, thus making the hole from Theriot's lack of production less of a burden. Renteria over Theriot would have been a much bigger upgrade than Roberts over Derosa.

Oh my god, he's an all-star! We have to get him! Mark Loretta, David Eckstein, and Mark Redman are all-stars too. Yeah and none of those guys would be considered a elite player for his position. Utley is the only player among 2nd basemen that has more total win shares than roberts in the past three years. Roberts is a elite player for 2B. I'm not saying he's not a good player, I'm just sick of people using the term "all-star" to qualify him as a good player. Read my above post. Anyways, Roberts wouldn't be in my top 3 choices for 2B's in all of baseball next season. I'd like to hear that list and B.J. Upton doesn't count since he's playing CF Well, I'd certainly take Cano and Utley over him. I'd probably take Phillips over him too. You could make arguments for other guys as well.