CUBZ99

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too. I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility. Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...? Hey, the media portrayed the Sox offense as smallball and Podsednik as a great leadoff hitter, so why let the facts get in the way? Yes, because stats tell the whole story? ](*,) When they are overwhelming, yes. Go look at Podsednik and the Sox's stats in smallball categories (OBP, SB, SB%, etc.), not good at all. It was a poor run scoring offense that got by because of stellar pitching, bottom line. In fact the only category the Sox offense was in the top half of the league in was HR. Smallball, you say? .351 OBP is not good at all? or 59 SBs? Since you want to rely so heavily on his stats and CS's please list in detail under what game time situations they occurred. You must watch him alot to know that he is not a good small ball player. Did his CS come when there was nobody on and the WS were up by 5? or did they come when the game was on the line? Did he take chances at the right times? First off, any time you take yourself off the bases, it's a bad thing. 351 is average for a leadoff man. And when you get caught 23 times in 82 attempts, situation become less of an issue. In the postseason his SB% is an abysmal 62%, that's as important as it gets isn't it? And considering the high percentage of 1 and 2-run games the Sox played in during the regular season, I would imagine most of those CS came in situations where his run was important. Either way, trying to mitigate a poor stat by rationalizing the situations his poor performance did or did not come in is a poor debate tactic. Either he is very good at stealing bases or he is not. And as it turns out, he isn't. As a leadoff man, if you aren't an efficient basestealer, you better have a really high OBP. He didn't. Nor did he score a lot of runs. Nor did he hit many double or triples. Scott Podsednik had a decent OBP. He stole a lot of bases, but he also got caught stealing a lot. He is nothing special. Thanks, I will remember that if I ever decide to go back to high school or college and join a Debate team. :wink: I am a bit suprised that with the Cubs problems at lead off, you think that a .351 is decent or nothing special. I'm sure that D Lee would disagree with you.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". 100 years of baseball is the proof. Hairston is not his equal even when throwing out reality and playing fantasy baseball. Pierre's ability to steal bases far surpasses Hairston. Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years. You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together? Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention. Just my groundbreaking work on Furcal and Giles. :) As I've said a few times, I'll go w/ the cw. Pitchers, hitters and managers may know a little something. Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

That just goes to show that there are a lot of stupid managers in baseball. :wink: Or maybe that this Pierre guy can actually lead off?

I did some looking up of Pierre's stats in comparison with other NL leadoff hitters, to see how worthless he was. Ranked with players that had enough AB's to qualify. OBP 2002 --- 2nd in the NL 2003 --- 1st in the NL 2004 --- 2nd in the NL 2005 --- 7th in the NL Pierre has been top 1 or 2 leadoff hitter OBP (qualified) in the NL for 3 out of the last 4 years. That is not too bad. from ESPN website.

Does Kenny Lofton want to come back to the Cubs? Seems to be a pretty big assumption on your part. The idea of getting Pierre is a big assumption as well. and the topic of the thread.

Wow, thanks for being the final decision maker. :lol: I guess now we can stop arguing. :wink: Does Kenny Lofton want to come back to the Cubs? Seems to be a pretty big assumption on your part.

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too. I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility. Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...? Hey, the media portrayed the Sox offense as smallball and Podsednik as a great leadoff hitter, so why let the facts get in the way? Yes, because stats tell the whole story? ](*,) When they are overwhelming, yes. Go look at Podsednik and the Sox's stats in smallball categories (OBP, SB, SB%, etc.), not good at all. It was a poor run scoring offense that got by because of stellar pitching, bottom line. In fact the only category the Sox offense was in the top half of the league in was HR. Smallball, you say? .351 OBP is not good at all? or 59 SBs? Since you want to rely so heavily on his stats and CS's please list in detail under what game time situations they occurred. You must watch him alot to know that he is not a good small ball player. Did his CS come when there was nobody on and the WS were up by 5? or did they come when the game was on the line? Did he take chances at the right times?

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too. I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility. Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...? Hey, the media portrayed the Sox offense as smallball and Podsednik as a great leadoff hitter, so why let the facts get in the way? Yes, because stats tell the whole story? ](*,)

How did Dusty get drug into the argument? Pierre would give Dusty a better option than Dusty had this year. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not make them a Dusty supporter or loyalist. I think you would find many people that would think having Pierre as the team's leadoff hitter is not a bad thing and IF Pierre's #'s were in line with his career avg.'s his OBP would be a big boost to the top of the lineup.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. But CPatt isn't comparing a part-time player to a player that has put up good numbers consistently (because Juan Pierre hasn't put up good numbers consistently). .355 career OBP doesn't meet your criteria of good numbers? #-o You said consistently. Last year, he had a .326 OBP - not very consistent with his career OBP, is it? Hey, last year, his SLG was below his career OBP. I would rather take a chance on a guy that has been better on a consistent basis and chalk it off to 1 bad year, than go with a guy that has a consistent .334 OBP, with a history of injuries.

For the Don Baylor followers Juan Pierre's daytime OBP was .374 last year. :D :wink:

How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers. WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x Hairston's numbers last year were right on par with his lifetime stats. It is more likely than not that next years will fall right in line. I just don't see how a .334 OBP solves the leadoff problem.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance. and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy. He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy. What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre. How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers.

:lol:

No, I actually researched it myself rather than blindly following someone else's thoughts. How about Pierre himself? Hasn't seemed to help Mr. Castillo very much. Reposted from another thread from late July: Pierre hitting #1 2003: .302/.359/.370/.729 (667 PA's) 2004: .336/.382/.422/.804 (632 PA's) 2005: .272/.319/.357/.676 (385 PA's) Luis Castillo hitting #2 2003: .325/.389/.406/.794 (590 PA's) 2004: .285/.372/.332/.704 (488 PA's) 2005: .333/.423/.415/.838 (271 PA's) Their OPS's are almost perfect proportions. When one goes up the other goes down. I'm not saying that at all. People would say that Wood and Hudson are pretty comparable when Wood is healthy, and that's generally true. Why doesn't anyone say the same about Hairston and Pierre? For the nth time I'll ask: Why does no one think Hairston is a good leadoff hitter if he could just stay healthy? It's been said about Nomar, Wood, Prior, etc., but when it comes to someone who's been Pierre's double when healthy, not at all. because he has a .334 lifetime OBP.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. But CPatt isn't comparing a part-time player to a player that has put up good numbers consistently (because Juan Pierre hasn't put up good numbers consistently). .355 career OBP doesn't meet your criteria of good numbers? #-o

Again, I'm talking rates of production. I posted the numbers already, they've been mirrors for the last 4 years, but if you want to use numbers from 5+ years back to show how dissimilar they've been, go for it. And no, the Pierre distracts pitchers theory has been debunked. It's simply not true. Debunked how so?? Cause Bill James says so?? How many major league fastballs has he swung at? Go look at how Furcal has helped Marcus Giles from 2002 to 2005. Can't see how you can disregard production. You're basically saying that Hairston for Pierre and Kerry Wood for Tim Hudson are good trade proposals. Throw out game's played and their numbers are pretty close. :lol: :lol: =D>

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance. and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

There seems to be alot of skeptics regarding Pierre, just interested to where Pierre ranks up there with "starting" leadoff hitters (available or unavailable) in OBP over the last 3 or so years?

Again, I'm talking rates of production. I posted the numbers already, they've been mirrors for the last 4 years, but if you want to use numbers from 5+ years back to show how dissimilar they've been, go for it. And no, the Pierre distracts pitchers theory has been debunked. It's simply not true. Posting the rate of production and making a comparison with a player that can't even stay healthy and has only played half as many games as the other player is meaningless. Also, as CubfaninCA pointed out there is a 20 pt difference in OBP which IMO would be the most important stat for a leadoff hitter. Pierre has shown an ability to get On base at a .355 clip. That has got to be worth something.

Nicely done! To compare Hairston to Pierre is ridiculous. Hairston has yet to have even a decent year while playing more than part time. Player A Avg. less than 80 games a year Player B Has avg. 150+ games a year Also, please give your reasoning behind calling Pierre a subpar defensive CF. From Espn scouting report : Hardly sounds like a "subpar" defender. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/pierrju01.shtml That's why Pierre is a subpar defender. The ESPN scouting reports are a joke, and using them Hairston could be considered above average too. Whether or not Hairston gets hurt or not is irrelevant. They have startlingly similar production, yet no one is saying "Hairston would be the leadoff man we're looking for if he could just stay healthy". It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

Nicely done! To compare Hairston to Pierre is ridiculous. Hairston has yet to have even a decent year while playing more than part time. Player A Avg. less than 80 games a year Player B Has avg. 150+ games a year Also, please give your reasoning behind calling Pierre a subpar defensive CF. From Espn scouting report : Hardly sounds like a "subpar" defender.

You can't expect to get much more than that in return for a guy (Patterson) who has worse career numbers than a guy (Neifi Perez) that some consider one of the worst hitters ever. Hendry has to do that trade if it is available. So what if Hill turns out to be a decent starting pitcher, the Cubs greatest need is getting a player who can lead off. Time to stop overvaluing the Cubs prospects and get something in return for them.

.355 Career OBP sounds pretty good in the leadoff spot. I know Pierre doesn't have the power numbers, but he would be a vast improvement offensively over Patterson.