cubbieinexile

On June 1st the Braves were 29-23, the Nationals 27-26, Mets the same, Phillies 26-27 and Florida 27-23. Atlanta has its winning record because it is beating up Central Division teams, Philadelphia and Florida has its winning record because they are beating up West division teams, The Nationals because of Interleague and West, and the Mets because they are beating up the West and the Phillies. And the Braves have beat up the Mets. The Braves have had injuries that have not allowed them to be as good as they can be. The Phillies have had injuries that have not allowed them to be as good as they can be. Th Marlins have had injuries that have prevented them being as good as they can be. The Mets have had injuries that have prevented them from being as good as they can be, and the Nationals are just a fluky team. Atlanta was fortunate enough to be having problems while being in a division that is suffering similar problems which allowed no one to really pull away with the lead. They all basically treaded water against each other.

And their answer would be to play in a division that had a bunch of other teams that are in the same mess as they are in.

I like Hendry he seems to be a good horse trader but it seems to me that he has no clue what to do during the off-season. I don't know how much of that is because of his higher ups giving him limits or what but Hendry has a horrible record during the offseason. This team has gone into every season with huge unaddressed question marks. Like this year: Q: What happens if Nomar the Brittle gets hurt again? A: We'll just prey really hard that doesn't happen. Q: What if Todd Hollandsworth is merely a back OF'er instead of a starter? A: We'll just prey really hard that isn't true. Q: What if Kerry the Fragile is fragile? A: We'll just prey really hard that isn't true. So on and so on. About the only back up they had in place was having Hairston and we only had him because they got rid of Sosa. If Burnitz had flopped instead of being merely okay the Cubs would have been in trouble. The Cubs even from the beginning of the season really didn't have a starting rotation that was set or even that you could be confident that it would be there. Same applies for the bullpen. Everybody knew Hawkins would be a risk, that Remlinger wasn't the same pitcher he was in Atlanta, that Borowski would not be available, that Williamson was merely a project that wouldn't be available for most of the season, that their youngster while having talent were still raw and had more to learn, so on and so on. Like I said in the beginning Hendry has shown that he knows about these flaws and that if given the chance he can fix them during the season. The only problem is that it costs you games in the beginning and if you can't find a sucker or a team willing to help you during the season then you are in serious trouble.

So then does that mean the Cubs were never really truly a plus .500 team heading into this season?

Again though how is it obvious that the youngsters would have been better? Was Choi a better option, was Hill, was Brown?

Mets, Marlins, and Braves all play in the same division. They all were struggling at the same time, which is why a dreadful Nationals team was able to be in first place for so long. But again I'll ask the question. If someone told you in the beginning of the season that the Cubs starting SS was going to be Neifi Perez or someone of that caliber, that Kerry Wood would only get 10 starts and Mark Prior about 25 starts, that Todd Walker would miss about 50 games, and that Aramis would miss about 30 games and play with a gimpy groin for a good chunk of the season do you still think that this would be .500+ team? As for Boston they have had Manny Ramirez, Jason Varitek, Johnny Damon, Edgar Renteria, David Ortiz, Bill Mueller, and Kevin Millar basically healthy and productive for the entire season. You give the Cubs that lineup and you can have all kinds of problems with the pitching staff and they would still win a lot of games.

But again how were they the best players? How is Cedeno the Cubs best SS option at the time? What has he shown that would lead a manager trying to win games this year to the conclusion that Cedeno was the best option? How is Murton and Dubois the best option over Hollandsworth? Personally I would have ridden Murton's hot streak and let him play against the platoon a little bit more but I can also see why Dusty was a little skeptical of Murton's batting line. A lot (I don't know exactly how many) of Murton's hits were a little bit too fluky for. Squibbers and seeing eye grounds and so forth. It wasn't like he got that line by hitting rockets. Best option theory: 1B: Check 2B: Check. When Walker was healthy he played 2nd. 3B: Check RF: Check C: Check Positions where there is debate: SS: With Nomar down the Cubs were screwed and nothing Dusty would have done here would have made people happy. Regardless of who he put out there he would have been second guessed. CF: Now one could make the argument that Corey was the best option while others would say that he should have gone to Jerry. LF: Another spot where the choices at his disposal were mediocre. I personally would have gone with the youngsters but he would be getting reamed for that too if he did that. To me Dusty on a seasonal basis ran the best option out there in 7 of the positional spots. Which I'm willing to bet his pretty darn similar to most managers out there. The problem for Dusty is that he had a horrible bench which leaves a lot of room for second guessing. Because the bench was so bad it leaves open the door that some untested minor leaguer be a better option. That is partly Dusty's fault and partly Hendry's fault for assembling that bench and also for getting high risk starters without a proper backup plan in place.

How many people would think we would be above .500 with Nomar on the DL for the entire year. Kerry barely playing, Prior with a broken arm, Aramis with his balky groin, and Todd Walker out for over a month? If everyone stays healthy this team is an above .500 team.

How is Perez over Cedeno costing this team victories? Is it better in terms of evaluating prospects? Yes but I don't think Cedeno's bat would be better then Perez. Murton and Dubois over Hollandsworth wasn't likely to be anything great in terms of production.

Did Dusty cost us games? Sure he did. But you are only remembering games in which his choices did not work. Baker also has games in which his choices did work and that has to be factored in as well. My friends and I have a running joke now the last two seasons. When the Cubs picked up Neifi I bashed the pick up and every time he comes into the game I boo. Unfortunately for me it seems like everytime I listen to the game and Baker brings in Neifi he gets a key hit. Because of it my friends always pick on me for that. Yes we can go throughout the season and find plenty of games in which Dusty's choices led to an increase in the Cubs chances for a loss, but you can do that for every manager. Every manager makes moves that cost his team chances to win. AS for Corey Patterson everybody likes to point to 2003 as if that was a year Corey accomplished something. He didn't it was his typical season. Have a good month, have a bad month, so on and so on. The only difference is that he got injured so his stats didn't have a chance to fall like they always do. AS for playing the #3 spot he wasn't even that good playing there, and if that is his best spot then he would be costing the Cubs run if they kept him there.

I don't think any manager could have kept Kerry healthy. Kerry has been an injury risk since the first day. CAn we actually be surprised when Kerry got hurt? They could have put him on a ten day rotation and he still would have gotten hurt. His arm has been toast and its been that way since Riggleman was the manager. Patterson and the Cubs have been going at it since practically the day they drafted him. Corey is basically one of those 5 tool players who had little experience in baseball and had great thinks expected out of him because of his athleticism. Corey I don't think has demonstrated that he can be anything other than 2000 era Shawon Dunston.

If Baker truly does have imput then that is another strike against the front office. Secondly I would also say that Bakers input is probably on the least important part of the team, and that is the bench. Baker perfering Joe Schmo as his backup catcher instead of Josh Schmee isn;t going to amount to much in terms of a single season. Perferring Tom Goodwin or Jose Macias over a young farmhand like Augie Ojeda or Roosevelt Brown again isn't going to amount to much.

10 wins is an extremely high amount of wins. For a player of manager to cost his team that much he must truly be one of the worst managers or players of all time. Should he be fired? Sure, he should be fired because like you said the Cubs during his entire tenure have never had a solid answer on any of their prospects until after they have left the Cubs. Because of this it has also forced them to do stupid things in the acquisition front.

Yes he has gotten votes. Personally I don't think he should go to the hall of fame but I don't have a vote. So my opinion really doesn't matter. Since this is a Cubs section and most of us are Cub fans and a little bias to our Cubbies. I believe though that when you talk about national awards such as MVP, Cy Young, or HOF you should put your local favoritism aside and look at it with open eyes. Having said this and knowing what I am going to say next. Let me state that I loved watching Dawson play and was glad he was on our team. Dawson was a good player not a great player. In fact I believe his best seasons were with the expos not with the Cubs. If you look at his 1987 MVP seasons it isn't all that great. In fact he had better season with the expos then that year. The reason he won the award is because he led the league in HR and RBI's two stats that voters love. Even though those two stats might not be the best indicators of importance. That year he crushed 49 HR's (which is a mind-boggling number back then in the 80's) but only slugged .568 and had a on-base percentage of .329. He couldn't even get on-base a third of the time (also his career OBP is .327). In fact he isn't even in the top five in slugging that year. Lets look at the traditional stats that most people look at when evaluating players. He only top 100 RBI's 4 times in his 21 seasons. He only tops 100 runs twice. He only hits 30 or more HR's three times. In fact he only avg 21 hrs a season. He only hits over .300 4 times. True he did bat .299 one year, but to credit that then you have to discount the years he batted .301 and .302. He never topped 200 hits, he topped 180 twice. Andre did have a stretch of seven seasons where he did top 20 SB's. Everybody likes to look at his low home run total and say "well he played in a different era. Players didn't hit as many HR's. You have to factor that in." And they are right in saying that. Unfortunatly they don't factor his era in when looking at his SB's. Andre played in an era where it was common for the SB leaders to have 60, 70, 80, 90, or even over 100 SB's in a season. In fact Andre was never in the top 5 in SB's any of those 7 years. In fact we was only slighly above average in SB's those years. To me just looking at the traditional stats reveals nothing truly great about Dawson. Looking at the non-traditional stats like OBP, Slugging, and BB/K ration reveals even further that Dawson doesn't deserve to go into the hall. From what I understand .500 Slugging is the benchmark for above average hitter. Dawsons career avg is .482, he only tops .500 4 times. His career OBP is .327 he only has 2 seasons above .350. His career BB/K is close to 1/3. Which means for every walk he strikes out three times. Which any stat head will tell you is unacceptable. To me Dawsons numbers look good or I should say better than they really are because he played long after he should of retired. I personally think he should of retired after the 1990 season. Yeah the next season he hit 31 homers but that was basically all he did. He hung around for six more seasons basically as a spare part or being a name. You take away those six years of padding and he would lose 93 homers and something like 370 RBI's. Granted if you like we can subtract his 91 from that list and say he should of retire after 91 not 90 but still he would padding. Dawson in my view was an all or nothing guy. He would either hit one over the wall, off the wall, into a mitt, or strike out. He was not a complete hitter and it shows in his stats much more than in the retelling of his legend. Basically this is what I believe to be true. Andre Dawson was a great Cub Player because of his leadership and his persona. He was not however a great Major League Ballplayer worthy of the HOF. A good ballplayer yes, great one no.

While I have never liked Dusty Baker, I do think it is a tad bit wrong to blame this season on Baker. This team just wasn't a good team from the beginning. The team the Cub front office assembled was a highly flawed team to begin with. True Dusty wasn't perfect or close to it in using that team but in hindsight this team would be lucky to win half their games even with the greatest manager of all time. Lets look at Neifi and Corey. Corey has been dreadful from the beginning so we can replace him with Hairston. Not doing so is a strike against Baker. Having Hairston on the team would be a plus for Hendry, in that he had a perfectly good back up for a risk. What about Neifi? Well Neifi was never meant to be a starter bu he was used as a starter because of Nomar. His first month was great so any other option would have cost the Cubs runs and potential wins. After the first month he is horrendous but what other options were there? Todd Walker? Sure he could have played at the top of the order but he was out until May 25th. So then who is going to play at the top, and how many runs would they have created? How much of a difference would it make? So who is going to play SS and who is going to play #1 or #2? Everybody else on that team is either way too good for those spots or way to fragile for those spots. Complaining about LF and which one to use is like complaining about which pile of poop smells better. They were all mediocre choices and the difference between the best and worst amounts to a hill of beans. Rusch's starts were against some mediocre teams not saying that means he is no good but his stats in that department are somewhat skewed because of that. For this team to be in contention means that it would have had to at least be in the running for 88 wins or so and realistically at least 90 for it to be truly in contention. This team probably ends up winning about 75 games. Roughly a 15 game difference in the standings. I personally don't think if you were to add up all the runs that Baker cost the Cubs with his odd moves it would add up to 15 wins worth. Did he cost this team some wins? You bet, but I think the big share of the blame should go to the front office. The front office has shown a rather depressing pattern of repeatably making the same mistakes over and over. The Cubs continually hand out bad contracts that hamstring them and then further handcuff themselves when they try to get rid of the contract or are forced to play them because of it. The Cubs continually rely on fragile players who have shown throughout their career that they cannot be relied on to stay in the lineup. Put the two together also then forces the Cubs put together a weak bench which is extremely shallow when it comes to plugging holes. The Cubs front office routinely shows a lack of confidence in its ability to develop relievers or in finding gems on the scrapheap which then forces them to go out and spend big bucks for relievers of even more dubious quality. This front office was relying on Kerry Wood, Nomar Garciaparra, Corey Patterson, Latroy Hawkins, Mike Remlinger, and others to play, and to play healthy and at a level that was unlikely to be able to be maintained by these players. I look at the front offices choices and that is where I see the wins being lossed.

The only one you can use for data stretching back 50 years. The most basic one.

Slugging times OBP

OPS correlates better to run scoring then ISO+OBP. AVG correlates better to run scoring then does ISO. The best in terms of correlation and "simple" metrics is in order from lowest to greatest: OPS Runs Created SLOB AVG+SEC(1/2) OBP(1.8)+SLG

The drug Clemens was probably talking about is Vioxx. He admitted to using it and when they pulled it off the market he thought he would have to retire. He probably got a hold of a big stash of it, which has allowed him to continue to play through the pain, and almost let it out that he was stilling using it.

So the beaning somehow knocked all the steroids out of Sosa? Sammy Sosa was already in decline long before 2004 or this year when players were allegedly getting off steroids. Not saying that he was never on steroids but 2001 was his high water mark and since then he has been declining. Personally I don't think the beaning caused his decline, I think age caused his decline. If you look at his splits he had some monster months after the beaning not just before.

I say he plays at least one more season. Somebody out there will give him an IRod or JuanGOn type one year contract worth several million dollars. Perhaps Tampa Bay or Texas. Sammy should probably stay out of the NL but I could see Washington giving him a one year contract.

And how many BA-minded power hitters are there, and how many of them strike out too much?

Well in terms of talent the A's have the Cubs beat in terms of last three years. In terms of merely this year? Maybe if all players were healthy and in peak form you might have a point, but then again that never happens anyway and a lot of the players the Cubs are relying cannot be relied on to stay healthy and in peak form throughout a season. But even with that the A's probably still have a more talented team then the Cubs. The A's too have had injuries to talented players.

Depends on the player and of course each choice is not equally weighted. For instance if I am Ozzie Smith and I swing away my strat-o-matic card might look something like this: Pop out Pop out Fly Out Fly out Single Double Triple Strikeout Strikeout Strikeout Pop out Pop out Fly Out Fly out Single Single Strikeout Strikeout Strikeout Pop out Pop out Fly Out Fly out Home Run Ground out Ground out Fly out Now by cutting down on my swing it might look like this ground out ground out single single Pop out Double Double Fly out Strikeout Single Single Pop out ground out ground out Single Single ground out pop out ground out ground out fly out ground out ground out ground out

How are the Cubs a better team then the Oakland A's? Especially if we look at the last 3 years? The A's play in the toughest division in the game and the Cubs have several doormats in their division.