Warpticon

You can try out different lineups here: http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around. .7 runs total, or .7 runs per game? It's per game. And I don't understand how you can say .7 runs per game isn't very much--is a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA not much better than one with a 4.50 ERA? Yeah, that's why I asked. .7 runs a game would push us from the 20th best offense last year to the 5th. It would have pushed Pittsburgh from the 28th best offense to the 7th best offense. I know we probably don't have the absolute worse lineup, but even a .2 to .5 difference per game is signficant over the course of a season. I was thinking along the same lines, over 120 games that translates to 84 more runs, pushing the Cubs' total to 593. .7 per game would clearly make a difference. I'm skeptical that this little program is accurate though. It seems to be assuming that this would be the lineup everyday, and one thing is for certain, Barrett would not be able to hit in the 2 hole everyday. I still don't think it would really make much of a difference. A difference? Probably. But it's not my biggest worry. A good way to test it would be to plug in some previous year's performances by overall batting position and see what the correlation to the actual results is. (meaning Team's #1 Hitters stats, not just Player Who Mostly Hit Leadoff's stats.)

I don't believe he's infallible. I do believe that you, and many others, simply can't admit he's a great GM and insistqualifying his accomplishments with comments that you would not use if it wasn't for the book and the fact that he did it differently than you are supposed to do it. Frankly, I think it's the same thing as saying Albert Pujols is a great baseball player but he still makes outs and errors and really isn't doing anything that others did before him. It's pointless and would only be included by those who have a negative bias against him in the first place. Yes, I just compared Beane's work as GM to Pujols' work as a ballplayer, and I really believe he's as good a GM as Pujols is a ballplayer. Reading is fundamental. Maybe I should have used the word without instead of and. I know you can write that he's great, I just see that it's very difficult for you, and many others, to not qualify that with a bogus claim like Alderson was the real architect. I see that it's very difficult for you not to be overly absolutist and superlative in your diction. Seriously, goony, this is getting freaking ridiculous. What he said doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with your previous conversations with other people on the same topic, and your insistence on pinning that to him is patently absurd. You're accusing him (and others) of letting the book influence their opinion of Beane's value when you're doing the EXACT SAME THING--letting trends of conversation about Beane color your opinion of the motivation behind his statement. It's ridiculous. Stop it.

You can try out different lineups here: http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py According to the simulator, Murton and Barrett would be the ideal 1 and 2 hitters for the Cubs, but as goony said, the difference in runs per game isn't very much (about .7 runs) no matter how you shuffle the same 9 players around. .7 runs total, or .7 runs per game? It's per game. And I don't understand how you can say .7 runs per game isn't very much--is a pitcher with a 3.80 ERA not much better than one with a 4.50 ERA?

It's also pretty basic baseball that leadoff hitters don't come up that often with runners on, so that really shouldn't be much of a consideration when deciding which of two players to lead off. Yes, good things can happen when making contact, but not enough to offset a significant difference in measurable production. We're not talking a slight difference here--we're talking a 40 to 60 point difference in SLG. That means that Fontenot is worth an extra 1/20th of a base every time he has an at-bat versus what Theriot provides, whether he strikes out or not. That's very, very significant. How significant is the extra contact Theriot makes? THe stuff supposedly beyond the numbers? Let's see. Theriot is striking out once per 8.24 at-bats. Fontenot K's once per 4.92 ABs. Over a 550 at-bat stretch, those numbers extrapolate to 112 K's for Fontenot and 67 K's for Theriot. That's a difference of 45 strikeouts. So how much extra opportunity is Fontenot getting to be productive in those 45 additional times making contact? Not much. First of all, an out is only productive with runners on, and usually with them in running position, as tags on fly balls or advances on grounders are rare with a man on first, and most of those turn into double plays--certainly not a productive out at all. So the situation that becomes meaningful is when a runner gets in scoring position. Obviously all of those 45 at-bats won't be with runners in scoring position. In fact, history shows that usually around a quarter or less will be, and it's even more futile for a leadoff hitter. So that's a maximum reasonable expectation of 12 or 13 at-bats in which Theriot would have a chance to advance a runner that Fontenot could not have over the course of an entire season. I don't have access to the productive out/productive out opportunity rates to guess how successful Theriot would be, but it's safe to say he won't be successful every time. Even assuming he had a 100% success rate, you're still talking about advancing 12 or 13 more runners per year, max, than Fontenot. And for all that extra production, you gave up a better OBP and a significantly better SLG? Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Cantu has no business in the world batting #2.

Fontenot, in my opinion, is not a leadoff type. He has a lot more pop than Theriot, and tends to get a little "homer happy." Theriot and Fontenot are both pretty good prospects, which means we will never know their potential with Dusty Baker running the team. I was disgusted to once again see Neifi Perez in the 2-hole tonight, despite his success against the Astros. Would have been nice to see Theriot get a little consistant action. Fontenot also gets on base at a better clip, which is why he's better for any role in the lineup. That said, neither are great prospects considering their age and other shortcomings(Theriot's complete lack of power, Fontenot's defensive shortfalls/inflexibility), ideally they should be bench players on a good team. Fontenot probably is a better overall prospect, and he does get on base at a better clip, but he strikes out a lot for a would-be leadoff man. He has good power for a guy his size - but I just don't think he is the leadoff type. The Cubs need a leadoff hitter in 2007 (assuming they do not sign Pierre - who will cost them $5-10 million a year), and could stand to give Theriot a consistant shot at 2nd Base the rest of the way in 06. I just think that Theriot is a better fit than Fontenot for what the Cubs need. He can play SS and 2B, and most likely would be an average or better leadoff man. It always puzzles me when someone makes this claim, and it ahppens all the time. You may not agree that strikeouts are the same as any other out in all situations, but when there's nobody on (which happens more with leadoff hitters than anywhere else in the lineup), it is undeniably, indisputably no difference at all. Look at actual production rather than strikeout rate. If he gets on base, he's doing his job.

And? My V-cast video is $14.95 a month. OFCOURSE they don't mention minute usages or overages. Ofcourse they probably sneak the text in there somewhere. But I'm paying WAY more than $14.95 a month. My monthly bill is $291.00. They charge you minute usage. Bank on it. I learned the hard way. Not with an applicable data plan, I'd bet. Beg your pardon? I assume this will run on Power Vision, whcih means that if you have a Power Vision plan, you don't pay per-minute charges for data, just the fee for Power Vision + the fee for whatever subscription service you're using (see: MLB Audio).

And? My V-cast video is $14.95 a month. OFCOURSE they don't mention minute usages or overages. Ofcourse they probably sneak the text in there somewhere. But I'm paying WAY more than $14.95 a month. My monthly bill is $291.00. They charge you minute usage. Bank on it. I learned the hard way. Not with an applicable data plan, I'd bet.

There are a few starting pitchers in the big leagues who have succeeded with only 2 pitches. And, of course, he has 3 pitches. Technically, he has four. He has the 88-93 mpg FB, the 12-6 curveball, the 9-3 ish sweeping curve, I've seen him throw (or is that a slurve?) and a work in progress change up. I would love to see Hill developed consistanices with his secondary pitches. Everybody knows he has the big overhand curve, he loves to use, but if he can improve his change-up, and his sweeping curve to a point, they become atleast decent options for out pitches, then I say he is "turning the corner." With that said, these last two starts PROVES he can pitch at this level. Adn the possible thought of a ALL HOMEGROWN talent in the rotation (Prior/Zambrano and any combo of /Marshall/Hill/Guzman/Ryu/Gallagher) is awfully tempting. I hope Hill keeps doing his thing, cause Hill and Marshall would be PERFECT compliments to the hard-throwing Z/Prior/Guzman/Marmol. I should ask Rich if I can ride his fastball to work! I'm not getting that kind of gas milage.

I was wondering...how would you describe the bidding wars this winter for Soriano and Lee?

How did they downgrade their offense by switching from Cedeno to Izturis at short? That one move alone does not downgrade their offense-it actually upgrades it. Izturis essentially replaced Walker in the lineup. The offense got worse while the defense got "better." I put "better" in quotes because Izturis isn't that much better than Cedeno or Perez, if at all. True-but we're looking to 2007. If the Cubs want Walker, they have the same option as they did before-to re-sign him. If not, it is Izturis replacing Cedeno, and whichever player-Cedeno or a free agent-replacing Walker. Sure, the offense got worse for these last 2 months of the season-but we don't really care if the offense gets worse now. Instead, the thought was that we would have Cedeno at short and a free agent at second, now hopefully we will have Izturis at short and a free agent at second. We will have to see. Yes, but Izturis is thus far only marginally better than either Cedeno or Perez, and makes more than them combined. He's a redundant, unnecessary part that has made, at best, a marginal improvement unless he, himself, improves dramatically over what he's done his entire career.

To a much more limited amount than pitching saves runs and offense scores runs. Defense in baseball is about on the level of special teams in football. It's important, but you'd be crazy to build a team around it. I agree with this statement but I think it raises an interesting point. Football teams do go out and add return men, Dante Hall for the Chiefs and Pacman Jones for the Titans, with the intent to improve the special teams thus improving the team overall. Building off your argument, the Cubs have done exactly this adding Cesar Izturis to a decent defense. The key now will be to go out in the offseason and getting some good offensive players to compliment Izturis' glove. Just like the Chiefs need to improve their defense and the Titans simply need talent on offense and defense to compliment each teams stellar return games. Several reasons this is a poor comparison: a) there are 22 players on the field at any one time. b) defensive players do not play on offense (and vice versa), thereby rendering any good offense/no defensive player comparisons impossible to make in the NFL. You don't have the same limitations on positions to get ether offense or defense that you do in MLB. c) special teamers play far, far less than offensive and defensive players over the course of a game. d) NFL rosters are 53 men. There's a lot more wiggle room for specialists. e) NFL players can sub in and out on a play to play basis. MLB players cannot.

A team with a 3-4 of Manny and Papi can afford to sacrifice some offense @ SS to improve their defense. But if Defense is not important why would Boston trade for defense? Why not just keep Normar @ SS? It's naive to think the Nomar trade was totally about defense. And baseball teams make moves that don't make sense all the time. Occasionally they don't suffer particularly because of those moves. That doesn't make the moves any more logical or practical. And, baseball7897, not improving their defense would have meant no WS? Okay, feel free to believe that. I'll just remind you that the Sox, with the same core and the worse defense, were a Grady Little meltdown and an Aaron Boone home run from being in the WS in '03. In '04, they were just ONE decent Yankee game from being out in the ALCS. Are you seriously going to tell me that the difference in those two situations was Orlando freaking Cabrera?

How did they downgrade their offense by switching from Cedeno to Izturis at short? That one move alone does not downgrade their offense-it actually upgrades it. Izturis essentially replaced Walker in the lineup. The offense got worse while the defense got "better." I put "better" in quotes because Izturis isn't that much better than Cedeno or Perez, if at all.

Pedro Martinez ^ Curt Shilling circa '04 Red Sox say hi.

It's a very big leap. How many plays did Cedeno botch up this year? He's got 16 errors in 98 games this year. Izturis is superior to Cedeno at SS. I think Cedeno will fit well at the 2b position. Again lets just let the season play out... Do you think the potential to have made 16 plays is worth 4 million per year?

1. Nobody said anything about booing him. 2. We didn't really improve our defense. 3. A lot more people were positive on the Barrett trade, mostly because his contract was cheap, especially as compared to Izturis'. Wow, you just reminded me that Izturis makes more than Barrett.

Do you think that 28 year old Chone Figgins would be happy about coming to Chicago with Pie in the wings at CF and Aram at 3b(assuming all the contract stuff is taken care of)? The Cubs, should be at least thinking of dealing Pie for a impact bat, or starter. He is still only a "prospect". Up until two months ago, Jared Weaver was only a "prospect." Last year, Francisco Liriano and Justin Verlander were only "prospects," as were Andre Ethier, Prince Fielder, Hanley Ramirez, Dan Uggla, Adrian Gonzalez, Curtis Granderson, Conor Jackson, Mike Jacobs, former Cub Ricky Nolasco, etc. In fact, every player you're talking about possibly trading for was, at some point in time, just a "prospect." I'm not seeing your point. Yes, you could hypothetically trade Pie for an impact bat, but you'd have to trade more, certainly have to pay more, and would be making the team older in the process. Pie could *be* that impact bat if given the chance. I'm not saying not to trade Pie under any circumstances--if the right deal comes along and the team is close enough that the deal could put them over the top, then, absolutely, do it. I don't suspect they're that close right now. I just disagree with the "just a prospect" mentality.The Cubs need more and better prospects with the potential to be productive, cheap players for years so that they can afford to be bigger players in the free agent/trade market when they need to. Geech, the well isn't *that* dry. Pie is a top 50 prospect, and was easily top 30-35 (seen him as high as top 18) before he struggled in midseason and convinced people he wasn't quite ready yet. (yet, as we speak, he's currently on a tear in AAA and could change those minds right back around.)

Carlos Lee has been "the man" in Milwaukee since he got there. This is the 1st time in his career Soriano has been the best player on his team. See that is my point though. He was in a low pressure situation in Milwaukee. I want someone who knows what the pressure is like to play in a Chicago, Boston, or New York. Yeah, Carlos Lee knows nothing about playing in Chicago.

That's your problem, not his. Prototypical, better year, stereotypical, leadoff hitters are grossly overrated. Walker could do the job better than anybody the Cubs have had for several years. Has he ever leadoff in his entire career? I think there is more to leading off then getting on base right? This year Walkers OBP is 20 points higher then Juan Pierre ,but isn't juan more of a threat because of his speed? Isn't Walker more suited for the 2nd place hitting slot? Were you around in 2004 when he lead off pretty much all year?

In other news, the sun came up today. I doubt you could find a single nonwhite athlete who hasn't had the same experience. That's just the way the world is.

I initially read this as "Baseball Team Profanity from 2005-2006" and figured the Cubs had to be at the top, easily.

Calling it a bad organization isn't saying they aren't trying. That's a false argument.

So I went to Miller Park to pick up some chicks, but it ended up being a sausagefest.