Warren Brusstar

Why do you constantly focus solely on his splits vs RHP? Because generally, that's all he is (and should) be playing against. Moreover, it's really easy to find replacement level right handed CFs who can post reasonable numbers against LHP.

I hate to drag this out yet again but the Cubs could do a lot worse than JJ in CF. He's got a career .825 OPS v. RHP By comparison, lifetime OPS v. RHP: Carlos Beltran .840 Mike Cameron .757 Johnny Damon .797 Andruw Jones .831 Vernon Wells .779 Torii Hunter .778 Nick Swisher .778 In center field, his bat is well above average.

Maybe if he was 25. The problem with your theory is JJ has been around long enough, and has a long enough track record that people know there isn't any upside to his game. So unlike with Pie or Murton, where we expect significant improvement, and therefore can accept some short-term struggles, there's no room for error with JJ. At his age, you know what you are going to get, and that's unacceptable OBP and overall too little production for a corner OF. 1. He's a legit CF. 2. Against RHP, he's a tremendous asset as a CF. He doesn't need more upside.

Exactly. And I appreciate the fact that he seems to be enjoying himself. A happy worker is a more productive worker, in my experience. I also agree with Vance that we should try and deal him during the offseason and upgrade. Finally, I don't understand why some of you find it so hard to admit that he has done a very nice job since the ASB. Its like there's some sort of Anti-Jacque society out there: "The first rule of Jones Club is we never say anything about him that could be perceived as a compliment." :wink: Because many of them took the irrational position that Jacque was more likely to continue to produce at a sub .700 OPS in second half rather than producing at or about his career norms. They were wrong. In fact, he's been even better. People don't like to admit when they are wrong. The funny thing is that the dislike for Hendry and dislike for Jones here seems to be clouding the judgment of certain of our so-called analytical posters. It was a pretty unremarkable proposition -- from an analytical perspective -- to suggest that Jones was likely to produce at or about career norms in the second half. Nevertheless, certain so-called analytical posters rejected that notion. In my view, that's a function of their personal dislike of Hendry and Jones.

too bad that doesnt apply to murton, considering his season is nothing near solid. I'm quite sure he was referring to last season, which should have earned Murton the starting gig in LF (or RF) to start this year. Or were you arguing that last season he wasn't solid? It did earn him the starting position early this year. Then he lost it on his own. Patience is a virtue.

Interesting. In the Kendall thread, when someone pointed to his 1 for 15 start, which followed four months of utterly putrid baseball, which followed 2 more below average seasons, you noted that this a great lesson that "patience is a virtue." But when Murton has a 3 for 19 stretch with men in scoring position (a stretch in which he hit 3 home runs, BTW), you've pointed out repeatedly that Lou "needs a guy to get a clutch hit or two." Please take your own advice. Except Murton was a starter early this year. He has had 180 at-bats this year. That is the difference. People were ready to throw Kendall under the bus. I have never been that way on Murton. I would add that Murton's BA with RISP has been dramatically lower than his BA for his whole career. That does worry me. Kendall had far more at bats than that and had a .261 OBP with Oakland. Yet, you claim his success now shows that "patience is a virtue." You can't have it both ways.

Interesting. In the Kendall thread, when someone pointed to his 1 for 15 start, which followed four months of utterly putrid baseball, which followed 2 more below average seasons, you noted that this a great lesson that "patience is a virtue." But when Murton has a 3 for 19 stretch with men in scoring position (a stretch in which he hit 3 home runs, BTW), you've pointed out repeatedly that Lou "needs a guy to get a clutch hit or two." Please take your own advice.

Give me my crow. This has turned out to be an astute signing. Reading that thread was highly entertaining. It's not surprising that goony is absolutely no where to be found in this thread.

My guess? This guy: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6355

Because he's a 25 year old non-prospect.

Ward's sucky baserunning and Murton's sucky suckness have killed our offense today.

Awesome job, Murton. Awesome.

1. Monroe is likely Pagan's replacement as the CF v. LHP. 2. 2 wins? Laughable. PECOTA pegs Monroe as 2.9 WARP over 500 plate appearances and Murton as a 3.6 WARP over 460 plate appearances. There's not a 2 win difference between Monroe and Murton if they each played every day over the course of an entire season. The notion that there's a two win difference between them in the 10-12 games we play against LHP the rest of the season is utterly laughable.

Jock can't hit LHP can he? Monroe's good good power and splits vs. lefties. His splits against lefties in his career .277/.321/.501/.822 aren't anything special. He has only hit 2 hr's since the break. He's the right handed Jacque Jones. I just dont see the point of this trade. My comparison is based on what he brings to the table, which is the same as Jacque overall. Does anyone honestly think Lou will use a straight platoon? He hasn't all year, why would he start now? Lou has been using a strict platoon in center field since Soriano moved to LF. It was Pie/Pagan and then Jones/Pagan. Only after Pagan went on the DL did they stop. If Monroe is now the CF or RF against LHP, this is a good move. (Assuming the PTBNL isn't worth crap)

What a stupid post. Its stupid to think Jacque and Monroe are similar? Or that the trade is pointless? Jones is useful against 75% of MLB pitchers and can play a credible CF. Monroe is useful against 25% of MLB pitchers and isn't a realistic option in CF.

What a stupid post.

Another big hit from Uncle Cliffy last night. It's nice to see him contributing significantly with all that he's been through recently.

Remember that we were carried for two weeks in June by MIKE FONTENOT.

Zito is a reverse split guy, against whom lefties hit slightly better than righties. That probably doesn't justify playing Floyd over Murton here, but at least there's some reasonable thought process here.

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd. Seriously, you didn't need that explained. What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive." Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS. The difference is, you're using splits against RHP only. Once you factor in what each player does against LHP, Murton is clearly the better option. Not to mention the fact that he's far more likely to improve on that than Floyd is at this point. There's is no dispute - at all - that Murton is the better option against LHP. None. Zippo. The question is who should play against RHP. Murton and Floyd have basically been indistinguishable against RHP over the last two years. That's a fact. And while it's true that Murton is likely to get better over the next few years and Floyd is absolutely going to get worse, it's an open question who is likely to produce at a higher clip over the last 6 weeks. And in any event, they both suck. For the sake of argument...if they're both identical...and we agree Murton is more likely to get better...why is there a debate? There's no benefit to playing Cliff. At least in playing Murton you get him some experience. I'd rather they play Murton and haven't contended otherwise. The point is that the difference between Murton and Floyd at this point isn't even half a win. Indeed, on the list of managerial choices that will or will not make a difference down the stretch, the decision to play Murton or Floyd ranks about 20th. They both stink.

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd. Seriously, you didn't need that explained. What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive." Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS. The difference is, you're using splits against RHP only. Once you factor in what each player does against LHP, Murton is clearly the better option. Not to mention the fact that he's far more likely to improve on that than Floyd is at this point. There's is no dispute - at all - that Murton is the better option against LHP. None. Zippo. The question is who should play against RHP. Murton and Floyd have basically been indistinguishable against RHP over the last two years. That's a fact. And while it's true that Murton is likely to get better over the next few years and Floyd is absolutely going to get worse, it's an open question who is likely to produce at a higher clip over the last 6 weeks. And in any event, they both suck.

Why the hell are you breaking out splits? Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification......................... So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING Good Lord. We should either be mindful of splits or we shouldn't. But you can't have it both ways. What in the bright orange squeaky hell are you talking about? The statement you're calling into question is that Murton has been productive recently and is more likely to perform productively in the futire, and that Floyd isn't. That has absolutely nothing to do with splits. Floyd is 1.8 bajilion years old. his power is gone, he's injury prone, and he's not very valuable. Murton has struggled, but he put up a .800+ OPS in close to a full season last year, and he's in his prime years. That's the point. Splits have jack to do with that, yet for some reason you keep bringing up splits. Have you even read anything you're responding to? And then you bring up Jacque Jones. Why did I even ask? Of course you're not actually reading what people are saying. I think it's you that's not reading what's being posted. Please see my enumerate point No. 1 above. I'm calling into question how anyone can say with a straight face that Murton has been productive over the last two years against RHP but Floyd has not.

Why the hell are you breaking out splits? Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification......................... So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING Good Lord. We should either be mindful of splits or we shouldn't. But you can't have it both ways.

Why the hell are you breaking out splits? Murton was productive last year. Floyd was not. It's freaking simple. There's no need for clarification......................... So you'd agree that Jacque Jones was productive last year and there's no need to break out splits?

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd. Seriously, you didn't need that explained. What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive." Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS. What a stupid post. Nice laydown. Seriously, you're asking me to explain something I never said. Murton was productive last year and is at an age where you can reasonably expect improvement. Floyd wasn't productive last year and is clearly broken down. It's just asinine to try and pretend the two are in the same boat. 1. The odds that Murton will get better are reasonably good. Floyd will only get worse. So far this year, they've both been utterly terrible. 2. I asked you to clarify what you meant by "shown signs" because I wasn't sure whether you meant #1 or whether you meant that Murton has actually been productive while Floyd has not. Point #1 is undisputed. But it should also be undisputed that if you consider Murton to have been productive against RHP the last two years, Floyd has also been productive. Because their performances have been virtually indistinguishable v. RHP.