neely crenshaw

Well here you go. High school stats tells me that in baseball things that happened in the first 46 games has absolutely no bearing and is not predictive of what happens in the next X games. The variance can say we played well enough that we should have a better record, the newspaper tells me we played poorly enough to be 18-28. Your Pythagorean says we are .530 "talent" team. I have said from the beginning this is a 75 win team, less if they sell off. So in the next 50 games(which takes us to the Arizona series) The variance says we should win 27 games. My old fashioned way of looking at the schedule and the team, says we are looking at 27 losses(.460 clip- or a 75 win pace) So here and now state your case, tell me I'm wrong and the theories are right...I'll wait

Hairston has a fairly lengthy track record of being solid, especially as a platoon. He's been awful but he is one guy that wasn't really as a stretch or reclamation project. Sappelt you give up on for now, Hairston you ride it out.

Pot...meet kettle.

This adds so much. I truly hope this helps make you feel better about yourself. I suggest you simply mark me as a foe and you will never have to read another post. It would be very easy and probably keep you from turning every thread into a personal attack/vendetta.

Baseball statistics in general do not work like you guys are trying to make them. You are working too hard to find a way that you can make this team seem good. Most of the statistic being used are reflective not predictive. Baseball simply does not work like that. You can't accurately use them to decide when you should win a game simply because you don't know when the stats are going to come. This team is the poster child for all of this. They win 8-2, then lose 1-0, 3-2 and 2-1. You look and say we out scored them 11-8 how can we lose 3 out of 4. You can look at their pythagorean and the only real thing you can say is we should/could have won a few more games, but you don't need an equation to tell you that. You guys might be a whole lot happier if you just watched the team instead of trying to make them a contender. Then every other week when reality rears it head, you won't be ready to jump off a cliff. There are a heck of a lot of positives going on that we should be happy about instead of being pissed that some players (who aren't part of the future) continue suck instead of magically becoming good.

This appears to be it...

Far less likely to have anything happen at first, but it could even happen being a dh and running the bases hard. This move has happened quite a bit in history, sometimes because of not being able to play defense at another spot, sometimes because of age and sometimes because of wear and tear on good offensive player. I simply thought of some big time young offensive players, that would probably have big time contracts coming and thought perhaps their teams might maximize their offense, while easing the wear on them. I really didn't think it was such a crazy theory that Harper, Stanton or several good offensive catchers might be moved to first during this generation.

So you wanted someone to respond to your post by suggesting that they move him to first so you could say "Told you Rizzo wasn't a generational player!" So tricky. No not at all. I actually asked Tim, who started the thread, how that( potential changes) might effect the thoughts on being generational because there are so few young first basemen. I also mentioned Davis and Goldschmidt, who are 26 and 27, and wondered if they would be part of that "generation". I was really trying keep a decent conversation going, rather than have a thread dedicated to blowing kisses at Rizzo. So how about this- Does being the best at the position for time span(5-6 seasons) make you generational? or does it take something more special? More of a HOF type stat run (even if it isn't long enough to be elected-ala Josh Hamilton or Matt Kemp currently)

When we were talking about Rizzo possibly being a "generational" first baseman. I simply said it's hard to say when there could be many guys currently not playing first base that become first basemen like Pujols did. I mentioned several possible names, one being Harper and was scoffed at for such a crazy thought. I think that if Moore does anything, you could see this move very soon especially with LaRoche nearing the end of his deal (2014).

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/bryce-harper-vows-to-play-as-relentless-as-ever--and-what-s-not-to-like-about-that--045257558.html God, I wonder what they can do to save this kid from himself.....any ideas?

That's kind of funny because I picture you a Bernstein lover. At times I wonder of you actually are Dan Bernstein.

Jays are being led in hitting by Colby Rasmus....nuff said

no, they aren't reading parenting books no, Dolis doesn't suck or no, he isn't pitching sucky?

Ok, I see that. I just took the totals at the bottom as being all levels. That's usually the case with most career stat lines, or it's the clearly mark minors and majors. San Diego being a terrible hitter park, (especially power hitters) had to hurt his wOBA also. That .360 would be in line with the 2013 projections, which like I said would be a nice step up.

How long do they keep Stewart now? Even if Valbuena reverts back to last years offensive line, it would probably take a week or 2 for Stewart to adjust back to major league pitching, then at least a couple weeks to evaluate where he is at. So a month would be needed to even see if he's an upgrade. All the while, he would be in AAA, taking innings away from Vitters and eventually Lake. Seems like unless Valbuena gets hurt, or really falls off fast, Stewart had better do something outstanding and pretty quickly or he's got to be gone.

Kyle. Obviously they have been reading parenting books. You can not say a child is bad...they are acting bad. So Dolis does not suck, he is acting *sucky* when he pitches.

I misread it but if you'd like an argument for it here goes. Small sample size...Fangraphs themselves say 3 seasons of data is good place to start-32 games so far this season is great but has a ways to go to be accurate. At his current output he would need to hit in the neighborhood of 50 hrs to keep his wOBA at this level. I don't think anyone put him in that category for this season. Obviously as his average goes up, and more doubles happen, it can balance it out for fewer home runs. They also do not take into account hitter friendly parks, which wrigley is. Rizzo's career wOBA for all levels is .334 and that is with truly outrageous stats in 2 seasons of AAA where he was well over 100 points higher than his average. He does have 4 seasons above that level, 2 at AAA and 2 at lower levels, so that's a good sign. Rizzo's age also gives hope for growth. fangraphs projects him at .368 which would be a step up from last year but not quite where he is at currently. How's that?

Not a big deal, but a pet peeve of mine when people write a 1.098 OPS as .1098. Unless you are making fun of neely, which is very possible, and if that is the case then carry on. Wow, transpose a decimal point one time and it never goes away. I guess if you can't argue the point, then bring up typing skills.

He's 27 now in his 3rd season up. So if 22,23 and 24 are mid 20's then ok. at 22 he hit .342 .405 .696 1.086 in his first season in AAA. He played 1 full season at AAA, and parts of 3 others -a 226 total games, Rizzo played 163 AAA games. He played 6 minor league seasons 472 total games, Rizzo played 6 Minor league seasons 445 total games. So was it the extra 60 games at AAA, or the extra 27 minor league games that make the difference? Probably should factor in that he was in the Rangers organization, and they were contending not rebuilding. They also had guys like Micheal Young, Mike Napoli, Justin Smoak and Mitch Moreland who were playing first, while we had Lahair. A little different circumstance. Rizzo's age may allow from his potential growth but to say but it doesn't say Davis is going to fall off. If anything it says that while he may not grow, he probably won't drop either.

Actually I looked at his last year stats .270 avg, .501 SLG and .827 OPS, which were slightly better than Rizzo last year. Did you look at anything other than this season? If you had then you would know his Minor league totals that are much better than Rizzo's...his OPS was very steady at every level...averaging.971 in the minors, his lowest ever was .876-which is better than any year Rizzo had before AAA. Davis had 5 of 6 season he hit above .300, Rizzo had 2of 6(both PCL) above .300. So why would his output be less sustainable than Rizzo's? If anything it shows they are more sustainable. For the record I never said Rizzo's stats weren't sustainable, my worry is that there isn't going to be the growth that we hope for. Also I am trying to show Goldschmidt or Davis is better, but I would guess that Baltimore and Arizona think they have something just as special as we so.

Off the Castro topic, but if we want to make this move we better hurry...lots of teams sniffing around for a deal involving Stanton. Who could we possibly give? Obviously Miami not interested in veterans. Stanton could be arbitration eligible in 2014, but not a free agent until 2017. I would think the asking price at this time may be out of the Cubs reach. Unless Castro was involved (wouldn't make sense to take on his contract to save money on Stanton), I don't see the Cubs having enough near major league ready talent to get him (Stanton) this early. but a lineup with Stanton, Rizzo and Castro would look pretty nice for the next 5 years.

A little inspiration. They were talking about anniversary of the 20K game and read off the lineup. CF Brant Brown 2B Mickey Morandini RF Sammy Sosa 1B Mark Grace LF Henry Rodriguez SS Jeff Blauser C Sandy Martinez 3B Kevin Orie They had 2 guys hit .300 and have an .800 ops(Grace and Sosa) and they made the playoffs... They did pick up Glenallen Hill and Gary Gaetti (who were very good) late in the season but our current lineup is at least in the ballpark of this, and the starting staff was awful-Tapani 4.85, Mark Clark 4.84, Wood 3.40, Tracshel 4.46, Geremi Gonzalez 5.32

wOBA up to .388 now. Why do you do this? I said I missed the w, and was talking ob%. My mistake, let it go As for the remark of moving Verlander Harper was drafted as a catcher. and moved immediately to the OF. He was more than an adequate catcher, but at 18 in order to maximize his longevity they moved him. The way he throws himself around the OF, they may move him to first also, it's not really a stretch. Stanton is 6'6 and has already dealt with shoulder and hamstring injuries this season. He also seems like a natural fit for 1b. Pujols played shortstop at times, do you think he was moved because he couldn't play defense? As for outfielders like Trout(less likely) and Harper, Darin Erstad was a gold glove center fielder and moved to first to save his body. So someday when Trout, Harper and Stanton sign 150 million dollar deals, their teams may feel it's better to make sure they have them healthy for 162 games and move them. It's at least a very serious possibility. Certainly nothing to scoff at or dismiss. The discussion is about Rizzo, how few young 1b there are, and the possibility of being "generational". My point would be that it's hard to judge who will be generational at 1B, when many of the next generation of great first baseman probably aren't playing the position currently. I offered several possible names that are putting up stats that are similar or better. You could also throw out names like Chris Davis and Paul Goldschmidt, who are 27 and 25, that are putting up better stats than Rizzo. Goldschmidt is 23 months older but he also never set foot in AAA. And then I simply asked Tim, his opinion on how those factors might change the thoughts on this.

I agree. His stats are good, and hopefully continue to get better. They are not in the realm of Pujols, Fielder or Votto who I would call generational first basemen. He also hasn't approached what Stanton did last year in an awful hitters park and he's very similar to what Harper did at 19. His current stat line does not put him in that elite category. He has room for growth, but his stat line makes him Durham or Lee not Pujols or Votto.

Tim, Do you think it's possible that's because 1B tends to be an older position? Also while looking at the future remember a lot of first baseman come from other positions. Votto was catcher, Pujols played everywhere, lots of outfielders,catchers, and third basemen make the switch. How does the future change if Stanton(23) is moved to first? or even a Harper or Trout? Either could be moved to save them from killing themselves on defense. You have young offensive catchers like Santana(27), Arencibia(27) and Rosario(23) that could very well be moved to maximize their offense. Even Lake and Soler are big men that could be moved to first at some point. It used to be they moved you to first because you couldn't play the other position, now they move you to reduce wear and tear for longevity sake, and to maximize offense.