Warpticon

Most people I've ever encountered say "First come, first serve." Which makes no sense, but that doesn't stop anybody.

A healthy Wood will surprise a lot of people, really. (Read that either way, both apply.) Before he got hurt in '04, he was well on the way to putting up a top-5-in-baseball kind of year--he was getting the control at above average levels and keeping his counts down better than at any time prior. He never has really been healthy to get back to that level, but if he can come back healthy and get on a roll, I see that happening this year. Yes, this is a big if, but I don't thin it's as unlikely as a lotof people around her seem to believe. I see 2003 as the downside of what to expect if Wood manages to stay healthy all year.

I want in, as you know, and I also thank you for getting "First come, first served" right.

I'd planned on doing that, anyway. :D

Boo, I didn't see this until far too late. :(

I'm surprised there were even 10 names on the list. They coudln't get "top" right, so why expect them to master "ten?"

For players with 99 or more XBH in a single season, average of 147 RBI that same year; for players with exactly 99 XBH, 133 RBI; for players between 97 and 101 XBH, 149 RBI; for player with 88 or more XBH, 145 RBI. Now that really puts things into perspective. Nice work again, Diffusion. It's too bad we couldn't somehow figure out how poorly the top two spots had on the clean up hitter as well. I wonder how many of Ramirez' RBI's last year were just Derrek Lee. Lee had 680 (give or take a couple) plate appearances and 107 RBI's. Aramis had 500 (give or take) plate appearances and 92 RBI's. How many would he have had with a couple of .340+ OBP guys along with Lee's .418 hitting in front of him instead of mostly sub .300 guys? Ask Andruw Jones.

I have no clue when Ramirez took his place in the "Cub Whipping Boy 2005-6" line, but I just don't get it. He got hurt. So what? It happens. He's on a conditioning routine, and he's been the team's most consistently good player the past 2 seasons. BA aside, he was having as good of a season as Lee was having before he got hurt, but people don't remember this. People rag on him for "not running out ground balls". With a hurt quad and a sore hamstring. So, he ran hard down the line to beat out a DP and completely pulled his quad. And gets ripped for getting hurt. I've seen this pattern of "Can do no right" before, and it's crap. He's the best offensive player the Cubs have (Lee needs to do it more than once for me to think last season was anything but an aberration), and thusly, should be cut some slack. If he comes into camp out of shape (which I really doubt given the offseason training he's done), then rag on him if he gets hurt. But injuries happen. Let's not lose sight of that in a mad rush to have a highly paid scapegoat. Look at Aram's legs. They are obviously lacking in both size and muscle definition compared to a typical power hitter. I see no evidence of a real committment to fitness in those legs. I bet I could walk down the street and point out random pedestrians with more impressive legs than Aram's. That has to change. http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/images/content/cubs/cubs-041605.jpg I'm not sure how you can glean all that out of a picture, through his pants.

I agree to an extent. But I would never build a team with walks as my centerpiece. I would much rather have a hit than a walk. Like I said, the best case is to build up a player's pitch selection so they don't end up chasing pitches six inches above their head ala Corey Patterson. Corey's problem wasn't that he didn't take enough walks per se, it was that his pitch selection was crap, which lead to less walks and less hits than he should have had. Who said anything about walks as a centerpiece? At all?

You're right, "hall of very good" is lame. I don't know why people use that expression. It's not like it parallels with "fame" at all. "very good" is not a lesser version of "fame."

Hopefully Hairston bounces back and is much more productive (say, '03-'04 levels in more PT). It's hard to even root for good things to happen with the inanity of some of these decisions.

Isn't it Feb. 6?

If Jones will move from QB, then there will be room. Not very likely, but the only way it will happen, IMO. As long as ND doesn't have to pull a scholarship, I would love to see ND get Mustain. Rumor is that not only is Mustain leaning heavy toward Arkansas, but he may influence some of his high school teammates that way. TE/LB Ben Cleveland already changed his commitment from Florida to Arkansas, and coaches are to talk with WR Damian Williams soon. Mustain already commited to Arkansas, then decomitted, after they fired the coach who recruited him, in order to hire his HS coach. This was also after Cutcliffe went to Tennesse, whom Mustain has wanted to play under for some time. Yes, that was addressed earlier in the thread. I'm talking about new developments.

If Jones will move from QB, then there will be room. Not very likely, but the only way it will happen, IMO. As long as ND doesn't have to pull a scholarship, I would love to see ND get Mustain. Rumor is that not only is Mustain leaning heavy toward Arkansas, but he may influence some of his high school teammates that way. TE/LB Ben Cleveland already changed his commitment from Florida to Arkansas, and coaches are to talk with WR Damian Williams soon.

I always wondered what "ello" meant.

Anybody who can arguably be considered the best hitter in the game (nevermind at a given position) for a 5 year period is a virtual lock, in my eyes. The number of players who can boast such an accomplishment is extremely minute, and absolutely worthy of Hall status. If you're looking for the best of the best, Belle was that from 'about '94 through '99. There were, at most, 4 to 5 players who could even be considered in his class at that time. (Griffey, Bonds, A-Rod, Thomas, possibly Manny.) And if a guy as dominant as Belle can't get in, I'm not sure who deserves to get in. There are lots of good players in baseball in any given era, and I find it hard to believe that there's any maeaning to a Hall that apparently can only house, say, 10 hitters from each. If that's the case, then the hall essentially becomes just the List Of Really, Really Good Players. It's pretty much the exact same argument the people who don't want certain players in make in the opposite direction. These debates make me wonder who people would vote for out of current players.

Because of the perspective. Strikeouts are valuable from either perspective because of the elimination of other possibilities. It is usually better to not strike out than to strike out at the plate, and better to strike a batter out than not to as a pitcher. The problem lies in perspective and interpretation. Often, when people are talking about strikeouts as a detriment to a hitter, they do so as an aside to whatever offensive production exists. For example, when comparing two players with very similar production, they'll say that the one that struck out less was more productive. This is folly. If both players have 106 RBI, or bat .312, or hit 40 home runs, then the hypothetical possibility that those strikeouts could have been other production is moot, because that's not what actually happened. The extra balls in play are part of what led to the production the player striking out less achieved. When you disparage a player additionally for his strikeouts moreso than his actual production, you're essentially double penalizing him, which isn't fair, and is detrimental to meaningful and accurate player evaluation. Take, for example, the ever-controversial Adam Dunn. To further illustrate, I'll take an often debated player, Adam Dunn. 2005: 543 AB, 40 HR, 101 RBI, .927 OPS, 168 K Good numbers, but the K's are very high, right? Well, one of the common detractions of him is just that--he strikes out too much. Well, it's true that he strikes out a lot, and that if he didn't, he could be more productive. But what it doesn't mean is that his actual 40 home runs and 100+ RBI are any less valuable. It simply means that he's missing the chance to possibly hit 45 homers and knock in 120. His production is still excellent. A player who makes better contact is not better or more valuable just because he makes better contact: he has to actually produce more than Dunn to be more valuable. Strikeouts are bad, but they do not negate real, tangible production.

I said ADF. Then I looked it up. And yeah, that's pretty consistent with who I would have voted in, anyway. :D

Of course, if you take into account Walker's OBP PLUS his SLG (the main reason I like to keep him around), the list of 2nd basemen above Walker shrinks considerably. The following NL 2B had a higher OPS than Walker last season: Chase Utley Jeff Kent That is all. Walker also costs us only 2.5 million. I understand your argument. But was Walker's slugging REALLY that IMPORTANT in LAST year's lineup? Think about it. We had a bevy of guys who could hit the long ball, and the team as a whole was at or near the top of the NL in slugging (I think, you can correct me if I'm wrong). Yet at the same time this team had constant trouble scoring consistent runs. There were elements this team desparately needed that Todd didn't really provide (which is NOT Todd's fault, rather Hendry's). At some point, the extra sluggling Todd brought the table was redundant. Now ask yourslef this, would you have taken another 2B that had more OBP, better defense, and better speed over Todd for LAST year's team? I would have. This year may be a different story. Todd's power and LH bat are more of a necessity than it was last year. You see, the players you need all depends on the construct of your team. This year the D, team speed, is greatly increased while the overall slugging should dip (OBP should be increased, but that remains to be seen). This makes Todd's offensive skill set more valuable while his subpar defense shoud be somewhat "hid" on a team of (seemingly) pretty good defenders. At least that's my view on the subject. I wish people would get over the notion that SLG is home runs only. It makes discussion of the issue very difficult. And come on. Slugging is *never* a bad thing. It's *always* important to get as many bases as possible in one's limited opportunities to do so. Period. Calling it "redundant" is just silly. The team was above average in OBP at four positions (1B, 3B, C, and 2B) and well below at the other four spots. Clearly, Walker wasn't the problem here, was he? No, he's not *the* best OBP provider at the position, but he's a) ours, b) cheap, and c) also a good hitter for power, so it would seem more important to improve at positions that were actually weaknesses. Yes, if I could get a 2B that is significantly better at THREE FACETS OF THE GAME, I'd probably take him over Walker, fiscal concerns notwithstanding. I think that goes without saying, but it's not as though the options available are any better--who else were they going to get? I'm not seeing where you get the impression that OBP should be increased. Jones is below average in OBP. Murton should be above average, but he's an unknown. Cedeno the same, though there's plenty of reason to think he may not be above average. Neifi is well below. Incidentally, Juan Pierre's OBP from last year was .326. The NL average OBP was exactly .326. We'd better hope for a big rebound there. And this is the only position at which it appears (barring a Tejada trade) that the Cubs have gotten better *at all* in OBP, unless they get great production from Cedeno and Murton at SS/LF respectively (I think it's a safe assumption that if Neifi plays everyday, he will not provide any OBP to speak of). It looks a lot like the Cubs are trying to limit downside and limiting upside in the process.

Figgins - pigment = Freel

You are wrong, and I am correcting you. Ortiz was 26 when he left Minnesota, just entering his prime. In his age 26 year, he hit .272/.339/.500. Not superstar caliber, but very solid. The previous years at 24 and 25 he put up inconsistent but solid numbers in the same class, but a half notch down. He put up a .090 ISOD at 25, and has always been a patient hitter. I don't think anybody would have expected him to explode the way he did, but it's certainly not unreasonable that a disciplined hitter entering his prime on an incline could perform much better in his prime years in a hitter's ballpark. Jones is none of the above. He's exiting his prime, and is on a clear decline. He's not patient or disciplined, and he's not showing any signs of improving in any capacity lately. The two aren't comparable in any meaningful way other than that they are both former Twins.

If people were smarter, they'd just call them "soft drinks" like I do.

Benjie isn't a wash offensively, it's a pretty huge downgrade. This was the best offensive season of Molina's career, and he wasn't within 40 OPS points of Barrett. It was also the first time in his career he's cracked a .750 OPS, while Barrett has been an .825 OPS guy since he's been here, and is two years younger. Actually, if you want to use the stats objectively (instead of subjectively, as many people here do when they have a point to prove) you would see that, in their careers, Barrett does have a better OPS... .740 to Molina's .704. .036 points. That's not a great deal. Barrett is a higher OPS guy, but hitting in the 7th or 8th spot, I want avg. Not OBP. Hits drive in runs that low in the order. OBP gets you on for a pitcher who gets on base at a .185 clip. Power is basically even. OBP and SLG are pluses for Barrett, no doubt. But, it's fairly even. And, with the defensive upgrade we'd get (a pretty big one, at that) I feel that Molina would be a nice pickup, especially if it netted us a RF and SP. Hey, you are entitled to disagree with me. I'm just not on the NSBB OPS Bandwagon, necessarily. The game is actually more than that. Average actually matters, too... though you'd never know it from around here. A couple of questions. How is looking at career OPS somehow more objective than any of the other ways stats are being used? And how is .036 in OPS over a career not a great deal?

Wheeeeeen youuuuuuuuuu Really need to scoooore And you're trading with Baltimore that'sa Mora...

But I'm pretty sure he's even more miles ahead of Pierre in terms of RF defense, considering Pierre's arm is weak and Pie's arm is strong. I don't forsee Pierre playing RF in any scenario.