SoonerCubFan

That's fair... I plan on giving that consideration to all good players who missed time serving during WWII or Korea. In retrospect, Greenberg actually missed almost 5 full seasons, not just the 3 I quickly glanced over. He could have been virtually identical in career numbers with Foxx if he'd had a full career.

The NOW list would be: 1. Lou Gehrig 2. Jimmie Foxx 3. Hank Greenberg 4. Mark McGwire 5. Johnny Mize 6. Willie McCovey 7. Harmon Killebrew 8. Jeff Bagwell 9. Frank Thomas 10. Dick Allen I give extra credit to Greenberg and Mize for losing 3 prime years each, and McCovey and Killebrew for dominating in a pitcher's era. Baggy gets the nod over Thomas due to his better all around game. Ultimately, I could see Pujols cracking the Top 3 and possibly end up #2 unless he pulls a Frank Thomas fade, and Thome moving ahead of McCovey and possibly ahead of Mize if he can get to 600 HR.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. What's worse for this year is his propensity to avoid making such bold moves unless the team is "in the race". For some frustrating reason, he'll let moves that set the team up for the future (at least from a baseball perspective) pass us by when the gettin's good, then spend too much roster and/or compounded fiscal capital to make lesser moves later, something that the Jocketty's of the world don't do.

TT, how do you feel about the idea of signing CLee for LF and platooning MM and JJ in RF? Not a huge fan of Lee. Not great at avoiding outs, and he's going to get an outrageous amount of money. Murton/Jones in LEFT field would be okay I guess, but I'd still want/need someone along the lines of Abreu(or the like) at the other corner. I agree about Lee. Those perfect fits on paper seem to always have a way of not panning out. The only hope would be that the truly huge Wrigley mashers like Kingman sometimes do have a 1 year monster year before falling off. If we'd only found a way to get Mike Schmidt at 3B ...

And they'll end up with Preston Wilson. Ain't that the truth.

That was a good attempt, but I think it took the only shattered batting helmet I can recall in recent history to really start the downward spiral.

Did Eyre??

Being last or near last in both runs scored and team ERA certainly suggests a monumental team effort, but Murton most assuredly was one of the most stinky during the horrid May-June stretch, and should not get a free pass just because he's a "kid" either. An ubelievable .484 May OPS, 6 EBHs and twice as many GIDPs as RBI in 2 months is pretty bad no matter how one looks at it. He's starting to turn it around now, and has gotten plenty of rope this year despite the Baker critics view, but most certainly deserves his share of the blame.

If I were Wood I think I'd be asking why that test wasn't done at the very beginning of the problem last year. With all the tests they've done on him how could this get by for so long? I'm not sure why one would assume this latest tear has anything to do with last year. After all, he had enough tests to result in him having surgery last fall, and he was throwing without discomfort in his minor league rehab this year. Bottom line, forget about him as a starter for at least a year or two, and if he pans out in the pen, leave him there permanently. It can still be a win-win for us and Kerry if they make the change now.

I agree with most of this, although I'd put more emphasis on the mishandling of him this year than last. Coming off his recent history he should have never been expected to be a starter this year. Since he was throwing so well in his minor league work, I have to assume he was pretty clean initially. Based on last year's short look in the bullpen, he should have been penciled in from his surgery onward to spend at least all of 2006 in the pen. At least now there is some recognition (at least from Kerry) that that may be his ultimate role if he ever wants a chance at a meaningful remainder of a career. I too hope we give him a one last chance in the role he should have been in for a while now. He does have a chance to be a dominating pitcher, and with the Cubs, if the right people are put in place and the right approach is taken from here on.

This is exactly the point. Right now he's in Spring Training while the rest of MLB is in mid-season form. He definitely was not "over ready" when thrust in against the Tigers, and otherwise looks exactly like one would expect in March. Now, as for the causes of his incessant missing of ST, I'm at a loss. Especially this year when he comes in proclaiming to have not picked up a ball since last September. What is that all about?? How about a ton of long toss and periodic throwing off the mound all winter for a change? This is your profession after all, and it seems as though long rests only make the arm/shoulder more vulnerable, not less so.

Good points. If there is one way to salvage this entire season for me it is by trading for Miguel Cabrera. I would forgive Hendry ALL of his lousiness the past 2 seasons if he could pull this one off. However, having already pulled out my hair when he let Rolen go to the Cards in 2002 because, of all the lame-brained idiocy, the Cubs weren't "in the race" at the time, I assume he'll have the same lack of future vision now as well. Heck, Jocketty will probably get him for LF by trading off Ponson, Wainwright and Taguchi - you know, because they're in the race now. Then they'll immediately sign him to a 10 year contract because it's all about this year.

I don't recall Reyes being said to have better stuff at USC unless it was much earlier. The injury part is true and definitely ironic, at least for today. Actually, watching Reyes pitch he looks to be almost a clone of Prior - from sideburns to stirrup pants to mechanics to repertoire.

I don't think I ever neglected the former (getting on base). I simply implied that without the latter (getting them in), the former doesn't do that much good. In another medical analogy, if the heart dies the brain will die but if the brain dies anyway the healthy heart doesn't do much good. However, with the grand overall analysis provided by BigBad, it is obvious that the getting on part is about 90-95% of the total issue. And, I readily agree that having good (and smart, which may be inherent) hitters is really all it boils down to. Sorry for my over analysis.

OK, this is the killer post of this thread for me. I must say I am surprised that the %s are that close. I'm 100% in. Although I never argued against the getting on side, I sure thought the getting in side would have more discrepancy. This sure seems to minimize that.

Nobody could argue against the opportunities side of the equation. But, if we can't use OPS w/RISP as a tangible measure of "clutch", how can we use OPS/OBP, etc. to determine who is a "good hitter" overall? They are ALL valuable. There are two parts, getting on and getting in. Putting some value on the latter doesn't lessen the value of the former.

Good point, although there is undoubtedly a team-wide problem of not getting runners in from 3rd, of not finishing off a promising start to an inning (rare as it is) by converting 2nd and 3rd w/none out into at least 2 runs. It's not just a throwaway issue solved by sabermetrics. Even our good sabermetrics guys have there problems w/RISP. To me, the two issues at hand - getting on base and "clutch" hitting - converge on one issue, being smart as a team in the approach. It seems like games are being treated as one big BP session for the hitters, and most of the starts (other than Z and Maddux) seem like the pitchers are still in Spring Training. All of this can be pinpointed in one direction IMO.

I don't get why you think it's just the Cubs. The Mets have a big Three that was highly touted and they all went down. Several teams have had great pitchers torn to shreds. The Cubs stand out because in the face of more and more evidence about abuse they ignored it and kept treating these kids like 36 year olds. It's got nothing to do with luck. It's poor decision making on the part of the Cubs. Actually, the worst example of modern abuse effects seems to emanate from the infallible Oakland A's. Guys like Mulder, Hudson and Zito (although doing better so far in 2006) all have been declining after a lot of early high IP seasons. Now they're abusing the latest crop (Haren, Harden and Blanton). Harden's already having problems and Blanton is getting worse results at this point. There are other examples - the 1970s Reds staff, the 1980s Mets staff, the early 1990s Reds staff, and individual guys like Sam McDowell, Mark Fidrych, Mario Soto, and Jim Maloney. Frank Tanana was on a meteoric path in his early 20s, but quickly became just a soft-tossing lefty. For a real chill, take a look at Steve Busby's career.

Well, it's been nice working this one over with you. Like I said, I'd love to see him get back to his 2003 form as a SP, but I still see his only hope of being truly dominant in a sustainable role as being out of the pen. Time will tell, I just hope whatever path he takes is the right one, and benefits the Cubs not some other team.

Oh, there's certainly rampant media overspeculation, no doubt. But I'm referring to the more ominous direct quotes such as these: "Pitching my way through it hasn't worked that well so far,'' (Wood) said. "The first 50 or so pitches, he felt normal, very good,'' O'Neal said. "Then we kind of hit -- I don't want to call it an inevitable wall -- but we kind of hit that level where he started to get back into some of the sensations he was feeling in his last two starts. As far as fatigue and not being able to put a lot on the ball." I hope I'm wrong, but I see nothing hopeful about pursuing starting for him for at least a year, if ever. I do see a very real alternative that could be win-win all around. We'll see how it plays out.

OK, here's the scoop. From the day Prior came back from his Giles event (8/5/03), there were three instances where this is true and alll were in consecutive starts. He had 7 runs leads after 6 IP against St. Louis on back-to-back starts 8/26 and 9/1 where he ended up going 8 innings both times (116 and 131 pitches). His next start, he had a 5-1 lead against Milwaukee after 6 IP that he ended up going 7 and 129 pitches. He later had 124-133 pitch games his last 3 starts, but all were close games. Wood only had two scattered such instances. He had one game where he pitched an extra inning against Milwaukee after having a 10-2 lead. He went 122 pitches then. His other game was the game against Cincy where he had a no-hitter going in the 7th with a 6-0 lead. Baker did remove him after the Pena scratch hit and 122 pitches. Every other lengthy start was in a close game. Zambrano had a stretch of 8 out of 10 starts with 110+ pitches from August to mid-September, then was ineffective for his last 2 regular season and all 3 post-season starts. Of these he also had two games where he was overextended with late leads. So, in a nutshell, there is a lot of validity to both arguments. These guys had to go long in most of their starts to get that 1 game Central Division title and that NLDS victory. But, there were several instances where even that bullpen could have saved these guys 30+ pitches - just enough to perhaps keep Prir from closing out Game 6 or Wood from pitching well in Game 7.

I concede. He now has no value, has largely contributed to the Cubs demise since '03, and has accumulated a fortune larger than the GDP of Somoa. I hear ya (assuming I believe the LR quote as gospel, which I don't) - he can't start AND he can't relieve doesn't leave much to work with. But, I don't concede. So what if it takes him a while to loosen up? Just do it. As I've said before, just have him on a regular outing schedule of a couple of innings every couple of days until he gets the kinks worked out. Either an extended 60 day rehab in the minors (now with about 45 days left), or just have him loose for the 6th or 7th inning of every Maddux start to work 2+ innings. That should keep him under the 60 pitch limit, get him built into the role, and even give a shot at being a real contributor.

Jon, I assume the latest revelations may have changed your stance on these issues. I would suggest that instead of prematurely conceding that he can't hold up to starting (as his vast injury history seems to blare out), they are now overdue. I, like you, was long supportive of Wood as a starter, but these developments on top of the way he looked out of the pen last year have me 100% convinced otherwise. I have no problem with them taking some time to adjust, and agree that it's better if he does this while not on the 25 man roster. I'm not sure what the rehab rules limit one to, but if he has to spend a couple of months working in regularly scheduled stints and side sessions in MiLB, then I'm all for it. Even if they keep him in a starter role, this must be the case.

The thing is, they need to choose now if they're going to start converting him over to the bullpen. I'm afraid they're going to continue to go down the wrong path (starter) and waste another year. 2006 should have been his "make or break" year as a starter and he's not progressing, time for an overdue shift of plans.

Actually, Smoltz was injured all of 2000, came back in the reliever role in 2001 at exactly the same point of impending free agency, re-signed with his old team, and had 3 great years as closer following his one year bullpen exposure, and later was able to go back to starting. The 5 year older argument actually seems more to Wood's benefit than against. As for need, I'd suggest that if he could be as dominant as he was in relief in 2005, Dempster could always be supplanted. The only question is whether this braintrust could figure out how to get him transitioned over. Lastly, it seems clear to me that this insistence on throwing 60+ (let alone 100+ needed for an effective starter) pitches per outing has proven beyond a doubt to be harmful to him, at least at this stage. Again, there is an easy way to get him converted, and is the only way I see for him to have any hope of saving his career for himself and hopefully as a Cub.