Magnetic Curses

i have one big name on my wish list, but managing is not about having a big name. i've come to accept the idea of piniella as manager if for no other reason than because lou will probably be given the players to compete.

I'm still doing the Q and A. This thread just seemed to take on that quality. you didn't answer my first question ;) Nor did he answer BalsaWoodKeyBoard's question about being a Communist. :D i've heard he is. though we must go to different meetings.

i'm sorry to hear about your illness. God Bless you and i hope you get well soon, you'll be in my prayers and thoughts. dusty baker being a prostate cancer survivor has nothing to do with how ell he can manage a baseball team, and him calling you to wish you well is no reason to bring him back. simply because dusty is a nice guy does not mean he knows a lot about baseball, nor is it a reason to trust his judgement on baseball matters.

Padilla is as good as anybody on the 2005 White Sox outside of Buerhle. They just had career years. Zito is actually much more similar to Padilla than you might want to think. He's an above average innings eater. But because he's a lefty and won the Cy Young, he's going to get a lot more. The biggest difference is that Padilla got hurt after his 2 years of big inning pitching that followed his relief performance. I'd really like Zito, but I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket. not exactly a ringing endorsement. saying that they "just had career years" only confuses things. of course they had career years, i'm not advocating the acquisition of any of those pitchers, am i? padilla has been unreliable healthwise over the last 3 years and to call him inconsistent would be an exaggeration. he's not good and he's not reliable, nor could he be considered an innings-eater. to put him in the same breath as zito, a guy who has never had an era+ under 105 while averaging 219 innings per year over 6 seasons is also a major insult to zito. goony, you'd be the first to point out at that bankrupting a franchise like the chicago cubs and bankrupting a franchise like the dbacks are two completely different things. it would be more expensive to chase after balance, than pitching.

How in the world do you get the idea that the offense was better? They were worse across the board. They scored a couple more runs, but in relation to the league, got worse. whatever the outcome, that offense was not 13 games worse than last season.

The offense has been the biggest longterm problem. The pitching staff has only recently become a problem. Pitching is more inconsistent though, so that's not a surprise. i don't know how you can back up the idea that pitching is more inconsistent. show me and i'll believe you. as far as i can see, it's just a phrase, devoid of meaning, that you just invented to combat the notion that pitching is more important, an easily visible one.

What does he do best? It's certainly not field a great pitching staff, because he took what was a great pitching staff before he got the job, and ruined it. His lack of attention to walks has been as big a problem on the pitching side as it has on the hitting side. In fact, the best players he's acquired at the big league level have all been hitters. notice i didn't say "best", i said "better". i have no idea what he does best because he doesn't do much very well. as far as him not acquiring much pitching, he hasn't had to before this offseason. he built the minor league system based on pitching, so i would say he's a good judge of pitching talent, at least. what he DID do was allow dusty baker to destroy the staff and allow rothschild to keep his job. okay, give me your plan of action as to how we can significantly upgrade our lineup without breaking the bank. and tell me again how schmidt and zito have stability questions. i don't disagree. what i'm saying is that even with assuming a 100 mil payroll next season, there's so much overpaid junk on this team already that it would be near impossible to stay under budget and field a team competitive on both sides of the diamond. i would love to keep aram and trade for arod. i'd love to acquire soriano and CLee. then go out and grab matsuzaka and/or zito. i doubt it happens, and that's the only thing that could save us for next season. our best bet is if hendry tries to field a great pitching staff. and vicente padilla is most certainly not the answer to any question asked, save a couple of very minor ones.

it's because our offense wasn't our biggest problem.

Plus, he's inactive. :D I was fearing that Hendry would fill the rotation with mediocre innings eaters, but I'm beginning to think that's not a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have lock down guys. But as long as they are not blocking the path of young guns coming up, there's nothing wrong with having a 200 IP decent pitcher. This is not in support of somebody like Trachsel, with his 87 ERA+. Rather, it's in support of a guy like Padilla, who is a good bet to give you an above average season and significant innings, and still has some upside for having a very good year. It's not in support of somebody like Kris Benson, who struggles to go many innings and is usually below average. But, the only way you can do this, is if you significantly upgrade the offense. If you settle for a mediocre offense, you need a great pitching staff. And it's much more difficult to guarantee a great pitching staff than a great lineup. it would be more expensive to field a great lineup. plus, as i've pointed out, it's harder to make the playoffs without at least a good pitching staff. over the last five years, it's been 33% tougher, actually. significantly upgrading the lineup after 2006 will be extremely difficult, especially with the way hendry goes about things. it appears that hendry just doesn't get it when it comes to offensive players. i'd rather him stick to what he does better than to trust him to put together a "great" lineup. this is a guy who thought that juan pierre was the missing piece to a great offense.

again, weird things happen. an average team like the cardinals amkes the postseason due to the ineptness of every other team in the central, and then win 3 out of 4 from probably a superior team. it would not surprise me to see tha cards win the series. things like this happen.

What if you scored on an error? Outpitch and outhit are pretty useless phrases. i agree, and shouldn't have posted the term "outpitched". what it all comes down to is that the playoffs are a complete crapshoot, the best team wins about as much as every other team in the playoffs. all you can do, if you are a team other than the yankees, is build a team for the regular season and hope they get lucky in the playoffs.

I think a team with 8 Beltrans would be a consistently winning team.....but I get your point. no doubt it would be a winning team, just not as winning as a team full of manny-types.

The Beltran team probably would have won this year. Beltran: .275/ .388/ .594 Manny: .321/ .439/ .619 The Manny team would have scored many more runs, but with this scenario are we talking 8 Manny's on defense too?.....Cause that would be ugly. Yeah, it's the whole package, including 8 Manny's taking the last 6 weeks off. Beltran's OPS+ equaled Manny's career OPS+ this year, although it was slightly behind Manny's 2006 OPS+, which was done in something like 100 fewer plate appearances. Then you're right. Considering this is about hustle and such I should have realized we were talking about all aspects of each player. 8 headcases randomly demanding trades and taking days off wouldnt be ideal. the discussion is figurative anyway. at 162 games and max production, i'd take a non-hustling manny-type over a "hustling" beltran-type, and so would goony, probably. we got off on a tangent when goony decided to lead us into a more literal debate.

goony's just arguing for the sake of arguing with me. he hates words that mean nothing just as much as i do.

The Beltran team probably would have won this year. Beltran: .275/ .388/ .594 Manny: .321/ .439/ .619 The Manny team would have scored many more runs, but with this scenario are we talking 8 Manny's on defense too?.....Cause that would be ugly. Yeah, it's the whole package, including 8 Manny's taking the last 6 weeks off. Beltran's OPS+ equaled Manny's career OPS+ this year, although it was slightly behind Manny's 2006 OPS+, which was done in something like 100 fewer plate appearances. 60, it appears that beltran took some time off as well.

As per your request nilodnayr: 2005: White Sox (9) vs Astros (11) 2004: Red Sox (1) vs Cardinals (1) 2003: Marlins (8) vs Yankees (3) 2002: Angels (4) vs Giants (3) 2001: DBacks (3) vs Yankees (5) My internet is currently shady at best, so I apologize for not taking initiative, but could some one provide this for all playoff teams, not just WS opponents? We all know that once you make it to the playoffs pitching is more important. However, looking at just the WS teams as a proxy, it looks like that save 05, hitting is just as important as pitching. ERA 2006: DET (1), NYY (7), OAK (4), MIN (2), NYM (3), LAD (4), STL (9), SD (1) 2005: CHW (2), BOS (11), LAA (3), NYY (9), STL (1), SD (7), HOU (2), ATL (6) 2004: NYY (6), MIN (1), BOS (3), LAA (4), STL (2), LAD (4), HOU (6), ATL (1) 2003: NYY (2), MIN (7), BOS (8), OAK (1), CHC (3), ATL (9), FLA (7), SF (2) 2002: LAA (2), NYY (4), MIN (6), OAK (1), SF (2), ATL (1), STL (4), ARI (6) 2001: SEA (1), CLE (9), NYY (3), OAK (2), ARI (2), STL (3), ATL (1), HOU (10) Runs Scored 2006: DET (5), NYY (1), OAK (9), MIN (8), NYM (3), LAD (4), STL (6), SD (13) 2005: CHW (9), BOS (1), LAA (7), NYY (2), STL (3), SD (13), HOU (11), ATL (4) 2004: NYY (2), MIN (10), BOS (1), LAA (7), STL (1), LAD (9), HOU (6), ATL (5) 2003: NYY (3), MIN (6), BOS (1), OAK (9), CHC (9), ATL (1), FLA (8), SF (6) 2002: LAA (4), NYY (1), MIN (9), OAK (8), SF (3), ATL (10), STL (2), ARI (1) 2001: SEA (1), CLE (2), NYY (5), OAK (4), ARI (3), STL (4), ATL (13), HOU (2) so, in 5 years, 16 teams not ranked in the top 4 in their league in era have made the playoffs while 24 teams not ranked in top 4 in RS in their league have made the playoffs. i think that there is definitely a significant difference. by this standard, you could say that pitching is 33% more important than hitting. but that's roughly stated.

If you had the right players, would Dusty Baker be OK as their manager? :D that team would have to be pretty dusty-proof.

The Beltran team probably would have won this year. with an OPS .075 points lower? not likely. EDIT: manny also had 6 more runs created in 60 less PA's.

just looking at the defensive metrics, as flawed as they are, jones appears to be slightly better. Going by John Dewan's Fielding Bible(this is the part where CardsfaninChitown shows up to back me up on how good it is :wink:), Jones is one of the worst defensive RF's in the game, and Jenkins has been pretty above average in the time he's spent in RF. i'll take your word for it. all the more reason to make the trade. i'd also take gabe gross.

While that may be true at the professional level, as a coach it kills me to read a statement like that. That's funny, because I know quite a few football coaches who always talk about wanting the talented kid as opposed to the hustling grinder type. It's obligatory to praise the hustling grinder, but I think a lot of coaches would love the opportunity to coach a phenomenal talent, even if he has some hustle issues. "Hustling grinder type" of limited talent, otherwise known as the 'Rudy'. Everyone loves a Rudy, but everyone also knows you only dress him for one game. But I still wish Aramis had a little more Rudy in him. baseball, at every level, is about talent. hustling no help hit curve ball. I think it's funny when it's either or. Let me ask this. Do you want Beltran or Manny? I'll take Beltran. Why, because he has talent and he hustles and knows the game. If Manny did the same things Beltran did I'd take him but he doesn't. I don't see why people always compare Manny to Neifi types when it comes to hustle vs talent. I'll say this, I'll give you ARam as he is now and I'll take the one that stays in shape and hustles. I think staying in shape and doing the things you have to do to prolong your career is the direction all players should go. Goony's right about talent, no doubt about it I want the best talent out there. But, when you're in a game and the kid that hits 250 beats out a grounder because the SS bobbles it with 2 outs and then your stud pops one out to win by one, you appreciate that hustle and he helped the team win because of it. No doubt, the kid that hits it out won the game with his homer, it would not have happened with out hustle. Almost all teams are not the Yankees and have 9 guys that hit 300 and can pop it out so you have to do that extra something sometimes to win a game. Sometimes the emotional, yes baseball with emotion, uplift of a diving catch can get a team out of it's mental phase that happens during baseball. That mental lift gives or brings a different focus for the team and also for the other team. I've had teams that hit line drives at people and the mental strain of that can be very draining at times. When you have a guy in CF dive and take away a sure double that team that has been hitting line drives and getting no rewards just sank a little farther. It's a tough mental game and that curve ball you sent out earlier with a line drive that was caught weighs a little more on your mind than it would if it fell. So if it's a either or question I'll take the hustling team over the one that doesn't if they both have the same or even a little worse talent for the hustlers. excuse me for saying it, but these are just words. this is exactly what people need to forget about when building a baseball team. in The Hidden Game of Baseball this is what's described as the "Music of the Spheres", and it seems you're hearing it loud and clear. admiring baseball and REALLY trying to understand it are 2 different things. sure, all things being equal, you want the player with better peripherals, but that proves nothing. baseball is in some ways very complicated, but in many ways it's very simple. given an equal pitching staff, i'll take my 8 mannys and take my chances against your 8 beltrans. over 162 games, i'll score more runs than you, and that's what counts.

just looking at the defensive metrics, as flawed as they are, jones appears to be slightly better.

If he was righty, he'd be the perfect platoon partner with Jones. Too bad he's not. i wonder if the crew would do: jones dempster for jenkins clark that would be a trade that would make sense. the brewers might want some cash, though. I dunno - is he that much an upgrade in RF over Jones? I know you love Clark. I guess I like him, but not that much. i think jenkins and jones are a push defensively. jenkins is much more patient and delivers slightly more pop, but is more expensive. if we didn't have to include any cash, as the the salaries are close to even, it would be a good way to get clear a bullpen spot by getting rid of dempster while upgrading our OBP in RF and CF.

I don't think anyone has really said it's because of Beane/OBP, etc. this year. In fact, people have noted the A's team this year hasn't been as good as most of their other playoff teams and that their OBP isn't that great this season. pitching pitching pitching. can we get some pitching, please? The Padres have pitching and look where they're at. The A's had good to great pitching from 2001-2003 and they didn't win anything when they got to the postseason. and they got outpitched. small sample sizes are a you-know-what.

While that may be true at the professional level, as a coach it kills me to read a statement like that. That's funny, because I know quite a few football coaches who always talk about wanting the talented kid as opposed to the hustling grinder type. It's obligatory to praise the hustling grinder, but I think a lot of coaches would love the opportunity to coach a phenomenal talent, even if he has some hustle issues. "Hustling grinder type" of limited talent, otherwise known as the 'Rudy'. Everyone loves a Rudy, but everyone also knows you only dress him for one game. But I still wish Aramis had a little more Rudy in him. baseball, at every level, is about talent. hustling no help hit curve ball.

first off, i don't know why you wouldn't want wood back at a reasonable, incentive-laden deal. it's a virtual no risk/high reward situation. i'm all for those. i agree with adding zito, but there were two train wrecks on this team last season, pitching and offense. pitching is much more important than offense, so an appropriate amount more should be spent on it. Signing Wood = $20 million bullpen. No thanks. I also don't believe we'll contend without major upgrades to the offense. it's not wood's fault that hendry overspent last offseason. i think wood would be effective and cheap as a closer, personally. as far as offense, well, i guess you just won't listen to reason. i've made clear that it's pretty common for a below average offense to make the postseason when accompanied by a very good pitching staff. i see no reason why our aim should simply be to make both offense and pitching merely average when we could make our staff very above average and make the postseason. Actually, you've shown the ERA figures from the WS teams, but it would help your case if you showed all playoff teams rank in ERA and Runs Scored. I'm not saying its going to prove or disprove your point, but it would be more appropriate for the case you are trying to make. i didn't have enough time.