CuseCubFan69

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well. But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it. But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know? Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal? If we're really going to get into this extreme hypothetical, I'll go ahead and contend that at the major league level, on the baseball field, the #1 priority is to win. The minor league system is meant not so much to win as it is meant to develop and evaluate potential major leaguers. Therefore, you can allow guys who have the potential to be good base stealers (i.e. faster guys/good baserunners) to steal in the minors and you'd be able to get a fairly good read on how good they would be at stealing bases. But we don't believe in stealing and that's the organizations theory. Team sully wants to go station to station and not take the bats away from the hitters. They stress patience at the plate. This is the mandate from the MLB team because steals could hurt you 30% so they disregard it.

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well. But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it. But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know? Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal? this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument. Why? You never steal and go station to station. I assume you have get your stats from the players from other teams but regarding your homegrown guys you'll have no clue on what to do. You see, to be able to compare and use stats you actually have to use examples to extract that information so you could make a knowledgable decision. Since you don't want teams to steal where do you get this info? If every team listens to you and thinks the sully way is the best way how would anyone know what kind of % rate any player would have?

Excuse me but it's your patella, not your knee cap. :D Whatever it was, it hurt like hell :wink: I'm sure it did.

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well. But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it. But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know? Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

You're the man Brian! Thanks!

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

I heard that Les Walrond has looked good in spring training thus far. Can't wait to see (listen to) Rocky pitch since he's now on the 40-man. 1.5 hours to go!! Imagine another tough decision for Lou? I love it when they have tough decisions like this over oh God, who can we put here that won't kill us.

there are so few players who are actually good at both getting on base and stealing bases that it's worthless to talk about. yes, if the cubs could get a guy with a high OBP and a high steal percentage, i wouldn't mind it. however, aside from the few guys in the league, they just don't exist. i'll take a guy like youkilis over a player who isn't really good at anything, like pierre. it's overvalued, although not as much as it was before. teams are learning from sabermetrics and moving on, leaving teams like the 2006 cubs in their wake. Who said anything about getting on base and stealing? Are you saying that if a bad hitter like Izturis could steal at a 80% rate is not better than than an Izturis that could steal at a 62% rate? Also, to get any steal rate you have to actually attempt to steal in the first place. On your team you have guys going station to station and play it safe depending on the batters skills ALL the time. Isn't Youkilis good at getting on base? I would assume he is if you have him leading off thus he's good at something, correct? Getting on base is primary. If the guy can't get on base at a good enough rate, you don't want him in the lineup anyway. Even if the guy can steal at 95%, you wouldn't want him playing because he would be a drain on the lineup by not getting on (I suppose that hypothetical 95% guy could be of some value as a pinch runner, late in the game when it's not likely he'd wind up having to come to the plate). Sure, Izturis stealing at 80% is a better player than an Izturis who could steal at 62%, but neither one is getting on base enough for it to matter. As for the bolded part, I'm not sure what you're getting at. We have plenty of past numbers on these guys that tell us how efficient they are at stealing bases, just like we have OBP numbers and SLG numbers and so on. We don't need to have, say, Soriano actually attempt steals to have a decent idea of how good he is at it. That would be like saying you need to see Neifi go out there and suck at the plate to know how good (er, bad) he is at the plate. Ok....let's say team Sully does not believe in steals. They stress this throughout the organization. How do you know if a player even could have a 70% steal rate or not if you never attempt to steal in the first place? Where do you get the %? You're coming from nothing and these numbers have to come from somewhere to even know if the percentages are in your favor or not. You see on team Sully they don't bunt, steal or take an extra base and wait for hits/walks to move them around.

there are so few players who are actually good at both getting on base and stealing bases that it's worthless to talk about. yes, if the cubs could get a guy with a high OBP and a high steal percentage, i wouldn't mind it. however, aside from the few guys in the league, they just don't exist. i'll take a guy like youkilis over a player who isn't really good at anything, like pierre. it's overvalued, although not as much as it was before. teams are learning from sabermetrics and moving on, leaving teams like the 2006 cubs in their wake. Who said anything about getting on base and stealing? Are you saying that if a bad hitter like Izturis could steal at a 80% rate is not better than than an Izturis that could steal at a 62% rate? Also, to get any steal rate you have to actually attempt to steal in the first place. On your team you have guys going station to station and play it safe depending on the batters skills ALL the time. Isn't Youkilis good at getting on base? I would assume he is if you have him leading off thus he's good at something, correct? i don't understand what you're arguing, here. Regarding all 3 statements? I'm asking you how do you even know what the steal rate could even be if you never steal?

Is Rocky a given name on his birth certificate or is a nickname from another name? I always wonder how people get named Rocky. I'm not sure about Mr. Cherry, but I know that parents can be very cruel in naming children. I heard of a family where I lived with the last name of Road who named their two sons Rocky and Dusty. I also went to school with Sunshine Monday and Mary Christmas. Names can be tough at times no doubt. I just wondered if Rocky was derived from another name.

Is Rocky a given name on his birth certificate or is a nickname from another name? I always wonder how people get named Rocky. Rocky Ty Cherry is his given name. Buck Coats is Buck Coats' given name. I wrote a little ditty about this the other day. Rocky Cherry and Buck Coats are pretty cool "baseball names." At least I think they are. I didn't realize those were their given names, thanks!

there are so few players who are actually good at both getting on base and stealing bases that it's worthless to talk about. yes, if the cubs could get a guy with a high OBP and a high steal percentage, i wouldn't mind it. however, aside from the few guys in the league, they just don't exist. i'll take a guy like youkilis over a player who isn't really good at anything, like pierre. it's overvalued, although not as much as it was before. teams are learning from sabermetrics and moving on, leaving teams like the 2006 cubs in their wake. Who said anything about getting on base and stealing? Are you saying that if a bad hitter like Izturis could steal at a 80% rate is not better than than an Izturis that could steal at a 62% rate? Also, to get any steal rate you have to actually attempt to steal in the first place. On your team you have guys going station to station and play it safe depending on the batters skills ALL the time. Isn't Youkilis good at getting on base? I would assume he is if you have him leading off thus he's good at something, correct?

We lost to you guys in the 70's in the NCAA's and it ain't gunna happen again!

Is Rocky a given name on his birth certificate or is a nickname from another name? I always wonder how people get named Rocky.

This has been my big beef regarding football because the polls do matter there. I agree, it doesn't matter in college hoops, thank God.

I find the value that the newer statistics provide is when they show some of the traditional thoughts about baseball to be incorrect. Some of the standard examples: - 6'1", 220 lb Kevin Youkilis is a more valuable leadoff man than Juan Pierre - Unless a runner has a high success rate (I think the breakeven is near 70%), attempting stolen bases does not increase a team's expected runs scored - Randy Johnson did not deserve a 5.00 ERA last year - Albert Pujols, even though he was injured for part of the season, was a more valuable player than Ryan Howard last year It's also one of the main reasons that newer statistics are disdained by some. It's hard for Joe Morgan to believe that Kevin Youkilis is a better leadoff man when the prevailing thought has been that a leadoff hitter should be a fast, slappy hitter. How do you even know if someone even has a 70% steal rate if you don't steal? if you don't steal, then you don't need to worry about it because you aren't hurting the team by running into outs time and again. pierre is a particular poor baserunner, for all the credit he gets for "making things happen" on the basepaths. But if 70% or above actaully helps the team, how do you know a guy can steal if you don't do it? And speed does help "make things happen" in a positive way if you do it right.

102 RBI for Soriano in the leadoff spot? with Izturis in the 8-hole? I don't know, that's crazy talk if I ever heard it. The pitchers disagree and say don't forget about us! :D

I find the value that the newer statistics provide is when they show some of the traditional thoughts about baseball to be incorrect. Some of the standard examples: - 6'1", 220 lb Kevin Youkilis is a more valuable leadoff man than Juan Pierre - Unless a runner has a high success rate (I think the breakeven is near 70%), attempting stolen bases does not increase a team's expected runs scored - Randy Johnson did not deserve a 5.00 ERA last year - Albert Pujols, even though he was injured for part of the season, was a more valuable player than Ryan Howard last year It's also one of the main reasons that newer statistics are disdained by some. It's hard for Joe Morgan to believe that Kevin Youkilis is a better leadoff man when the prevailing thought has been that a leadoff hitter should be a fast, slappy hitter. How do you even know if someone even has a 70% steal rate if you don't steal?

Where's Soriano? Whoops...you're right! Let's put him at SS! Do you realize how nice it is that what wrote you means that the Cubs actually have decent depth? This OF has a lot of options and if somebody steps up to play CF it's golden.

You really had me until you made that statement. It's a dream world Bob! Out of curiousity, does anyone know what kind of shape Floyd came into Spring Training with? I would hope he lost a few pounds to help keep the pressure off of his achillies.

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer. i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story. That's how I read it and I agree with what you just said. fair enough. now admit that i'm right about everything. :D You are right about anything that you agreed with me on. Fair enough!?

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer. i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story. That's how I read it and I agree with what you just said.

I have a feeling that Jones will end up some other place, and Pie being the CFer. Those are two things that would not surprise me at all. Me either. In my perfect world Jones is doing well and Pie is mashing the ball at Iowa. The Cubs trade Jones for a SS prospect and pull up Pie, switch Murton to right and Floyd is healthy and hitting well in left. I'm curious where Lou would hit Pie in this scenerio.

Good question, I was hoping for Maddux myself!

A few hours before kickoff!