cubbieinexile

Okay then explain why that is so. Are they saying that if we based win shares on pyth he would get more or less. I just don't see it. Win Shares has nothing to do with pythagorean expectations. On the same site they explain how they calculate Win Shares and they make no mention of pyth expectations. I have the Win Shares book and I have never read anything about pythagorean and how it is used to calculate win shares Basically what I think the author is saying is that if we went by pyth wins and losses (which to statheads they feel is more important) then a player would get more or less win shares depending on the difference. But that is using Win Shares incorrectly. Win Shares is trying to explain how a team won its games not the supposed value of events in baseball. Metrics like VORP and WARP do that

Just because a mathematical formula tells you one thing does it mean that the Cards have more wins to go around by luck. It simply means that the mathematical formula does not adequately model the way the team played. IT wasn't luck it wasn't random it just means the model isn't accurate for this team. R^2/R^2+RA^2 is simple formula and it will get you close to actual wins but it is not and exact and precise formula.

Um. . . maybe I missed it but where does Bill say Win Shares is based off of pyth expectations? Win Shares is based on actual wins. If you have 80 wins then you have 240 win shares. The division between hitting and defense is fixed so the pyth isn't used their either. The division of win shares for individual players is based on runs created, but the runs created is tied to actual runs so it isn't used their either.

Well supported rebuttals and hard facts? I must have missed that post. Your view as far as I know. Kerry Wood started 32 games in 2003 Nomar played a lot of games in 2002 and 2003. Latroy had nice stats. OF weak, IF strong Those are well supported rebuttals and hard facts? As for Diamond Mind and their projections go to their site, do a google search. They present their projections every year. Hard Facts in return? Nomar has a long history of injury problems and of healing slowly. Nomar was injured and missed time last year. Kerry Wood has a long history of being injured he has missed starts practically every year of his career. Kerry Wood missed significant time last year. Neifi Perez has been one of the worst MLB ballplayers in recent seasons. Aramis Ramirez has been bothered by his legs for a couple of years now. Todd Walkers is on the wrong side of 30 and he gets dinged up and misses games and has gone on the DL for ailments the past several years. Corey Patterson is inconsistent. Burnitz is old, played at Coors last year, rest of his stats besides Coors in decline. Todd Hollandsworth is a 4th OF'er at best. Jason Dubois is a rookie. Hawkins cannot handle close games. Greg Maddux is 39 years old. Michael Barrett is a catcher, no matter how good he is he is going to miss time and be replace with a blackhole. That severely weakens the view that the IF is going to carry the team. Secondly Barrett had his first good season with the bat since 1999. Derrek Lee was an .850 OPS first basemen going into this season. Remlinger is old, not a lefty specialist, and has missed time over his contract. Bullpen young and inconsistent.

That was a projection for 2003 that I quoted myself on. You asked about my track record I showed you a post I made before 2003. As for Diamond Mind they are one of the best predictors of baseball seasons in the business. They are probably the most consistently reliable source on team projections around. There are times when an individual is better then Diamond but it is not a routine occurrence. Whereas Daimond mind has been at the top for awhile now. I keep bringing up the OF because you keep acting like it wasn't a big deal that it was weak. The infield was supposed to be the strength but it had serious gambles attached to it and some not so serious and the safety net was non-existant by not having a bench worth a saltlick. ARam and Barrett playing at their 2004 level was a risk, Nomar being healthy was a risk, Aram's legs were a risk, various nicks and bruises to Todd were a risk. What did the Cubs have to back any of this up? Zeros. So Hendry goes into the season according to you with full knowledge that his OF is going to be weak, but that is ok because the runs are going to come from the IF and that is ok because .. . why? Because Nomar is going to play 155 games? That Barret will play 162? That Todd won't miss ten, 15, or 20 games? That Aramis who has had balky legs for years now will stay completely healthy and unhindered throughout the season? Going into this season I had the Cubs IF with a best case scenario of creating about 500 runs, and that was with the Cubs starters getting the bulk of time. So far you haven't even come close to showing why we should have expected these players to be healthy and playing 155 games or more. That means that the Cub outfield would need to score about 300 more runs to be a productive season for the Cubs. I have the Cub outfield falling just short of that in best case scenario. Looking back at the start of the season what did you expect out of each position? How many runs did you think this team would score? How many runs did you think they would allow? Did you seriously look at this Cub offense and think 850 runs? Did you seriously look at the Cubs bullpen, defense, and health history of the Cubs starters and think 675 runs? This was a flawed team from the start and I don't think I would get much disagreement with that statement. This team was another one of those Cubs teams that if they catch lightning in a bottle they take off and go to the playoffs. The 1984 team was like that, the 1989, the 1998, and the 2003 was like that. There is a reason why the Cubs have gone so long without back to back winnings seasons and that is because the teams they put together are highly flawed. There is a reason why the Cubs have gone so long without 100 wins or even 95 wins (The cubs have gone over 95 wins once in the last 60 years). A GM has to expect things to go wrong, he has to expect players to get hurt, to underperform, to slump, to surpass and so on. No plan survives contact with the enemy. This year from the word go Hendry had put himself behind the 8 ball. This was most definitely a cross your fingers and hope everything goes right kind of season for the Cubs. This isn't a Yankee or Braves team or even is some respect an A's team where they can know before the season has even started that they have assembled a team that is going to win at least 90 games, and how many games they win past that depends on those variations. The Cubs on the other hand assembled teams that are in all probability 82 win teams and what happens beyond that depends on variations. In otherwords the Cubs hope and pray they make it to 90 wins. While successful teams build a team they know will make it to 90 wins. Take a look at the Red Sox, they have had to be in division with the Yankees and Baltimore for a very long time and for almost 40 years now they have managed to put together a team that its fans know almost totally that it is good enough to finish with a winning record. It doesn't always happen, but finish above .500 is almost a sure thing. They have done this with many different GM's and styles. The Red Sox go into a season not trying to figure out how to finish with a winning record but how to win 95 or more games.

Diamond mind has been doing their preseason track records for years now. I have posted my predictions on this site as well and have come awfully close on wins and runs. So everybody who said the outfield is going to be shaky and that the starting staff is going to have health issues was just pulling our leg? So you honestly thought that a Burnitz, Dubworth, and Patterson were going to be a productive outfield? You honestly thought that Kerry Wood would be healthy? That Nomar would be healthy throughout the season? I know I hoped all those things to happen but I didn't seriously think they would happen.

Diamond Mind Baseball projected the Cubs to win 83 games this year. They expected the Cubs to score 783 runs and allow 768 runs.

So what should Hendry have expected out of his bench? What should he have expected out of Nomar? Third base? Second base? Left field? Right Field? Pitching Staff? This isn't rocket science, you simply go position by position and compute what you think each player will do. Add it all up and you get and overall run number. Last year this Cubs team scored 789 runs. How many more should we have expected out of this team? The 2003 team scored 724 runs. Scoring 825 runs would have been the 6th highest run total for the Cubs since 1900. So yes I think 825 is a reasonable ceiling. Yes I do think expecting SS, 2nd base, and third base to miss some playing thus lowering the run value. Yes I do expect a bench of blanco, macias, and perez to underperform. Wouldn't you? The cubs in 2004 allowed 665 runs, in 2003 they gave up 683 runs. So yeah expecting a team to give up around 680 to 700 runs is reasonable. You have Greg Maddux at 39 years and very unlikely to have a Roger Clemens like resurgence. You had Carlos Zambrano posting a 2.75 ERA last year, something that is unlikely to happen again or be lower the next year. You have a team relying on Mitre and a bunch of young untested throwers to to pitch a lot of innings. I don't see how you can expect this teams pitching staff to allow only 665 runs again. 700 to 725 runs seems completely reasonable. So if Hendry had a chance to do it all over again he should change nothing? That what he did was the best possible moves or the only moves he could make. Is that your position?

I had the Cubs with a best case scenario scoring 825 runs or so and that is again best case scenario. I had them allowing around 680 to 700 runs as best case scenario. That puts them at around 93 to 95 wins as best possible. To me that is their ceiling and the more likely scenario is that they fall below that ceiling. How much would depends on the gambles they take. Nomar was a gamble he has a track record of being injured and having a slow recovery. He had a stretch of 4 or 5 years where he was always injured. Even in 2002 and 2003 he was always playing with a variety of ailments. Nomar plays the whole season he is worth about 110 to 120 runs. If Neifi plays most of the season he is worth around 75 runs. Likely event is that with Nomar as the starter you would get around 90 runs out of the SS. Meaning right there you the most likely event is that you don't score 825 runs but 795 or so runs. Then throw in the fact that you have a third basemen and a second basemen who do get niggling injuries and you have a mediocre bench and that is another 20 or so runs that you lose. Then you look at the outfield and you look at LF and you see a 4th OF'er starting with the back up being a untested rookie and that is another 20 or so runs you lose. So to me going into the seaon the best case scenario is 825 runs, the most likely amount would probably be 750 runs. For the pitching side I think you have to fully expect Kerry Wood missing time, I think you have to expect the bullpen to struggle at least a little, and Greg Maddux to age at least a little. I don't think you can expect Mark Prior to miss time, there would definitely be a risk but I don't think you could expect him to miss more then 3 or 4 starts at the most. I think 680 to 700 was best case but I think 720 or would probably be the most likely outcome. So best outcome is 93 to 95 wins the more likely outcome is 84 wins. So Hendry put together a team that if everything worked out had a chance at the Wild Card but the more likely event would be that it would be a middling team. Now if he had a 60 million dollar payroll and a bunch of youngsters I would say that he did a great job. But that wasn't the case. He spent around 100 million dollars and had a lot of established players. With that kind of money you don't build a team that has a fighting chance at the Wild Card. You build a division winner. Look at that bench, that is a horrible bench, outside of Hairston all of them should be expected to be a black hole. So Hendry assembled a team that had no margin for error. What would have been the plan if Aramis Ramirez pulls a muscle and is out for a month? Do a Lenny Harris again? What would be the game plan if Nomar's wrist acts up? Have Neifi start? I'm not saying that the Cubs should have had a all-star back up at every position but their options for each position if the starter went down was a black hole. Hairston was the only saving grace on that bench. If Todd goes down he would have been a serviceable replacement, if Corey goes down he would have been ok, and in left he would be mediocre but he wouldn't have been a blackhole. A team that has Blanco, Macias, Neifi, and an untested rookie as their bench is a team that is praying to god that their starters stay healthy. A team with Nomar, ARam, Todd, and a 36 year old right fielder is not going to get that prayer answered often.

So Hendry had a plan and it was overrun by poor performances and what did he do about it? Nothing. And who gave those poor performances? All except for Corey could have been easily expected. If Hendry had a plan it was an extremely risky one and when it didn't work he did nothing to alleviate the problem.

your number 2 and 3 is basically what I am saying in a nutshell. Well done.

I remember in 2002 on the old message boards a Reds fan coming on bashing the cubs during the preseason saying how the Reds were going to be better then the Cubs that year. I and many others attacked his view and though it was completely silly. We all thought that the team that won 88 games in 2001 would be even better then the year before. We were wrong and looking back I think most of realized we should have seen it before hand but let our fan bias and hoeps get in the way. It happens all the time. We look at our Cubs and imagine best case scenario, we look at our opponents and we imagine everything going wrong. As for the positional players I agree with Goony. Three or 4 years ago I was lamenting on the lack of quality positional players in our minor league system. Many many people jumped on those statements and thought they were ludicrous. They started naming virtually all the players Goony just mentioned and how they were just around the corner and were the Cubs future. Jump ahead to the end of 2005 and they are all gone and looking to be all bust or at the most bench fodder. Now though if you say the same thing those same people will again say it is a ludicrous statement and they will name a whole bunch new players that are just around the corner and our future. And as for Hill and Choi getting us ARam and DLee, that was a fluke the Pirates were dumping salaries on players they knew they would not keep same with Florida. Expecting the Cubs or relying on them to be able to do this on constant basis is not going to get them anywhere. It is not a common occurence we cannot simply flip a prospect every year for some triple crown hitter or pitcher.

So Corey wasn't a gamble this year? We could expect solid above average performance from him this year? I'm not saying we could have expected him to play as bad as he did but there is nothing in his past performance to suggest that we should have been confident in his abilities. Could we have expected DLee to be as good as he was? No but we could have expected to play rather well this season based on seasons past. Could we say the same for Corey, Burnitz, and Hollandsworth? You keep asking for alternatives but it is impossible to bring up alternatives. We are outsiders all we would be doing is second guessing and it would be rather pointless. could I say that the Cubs should have kept Moises, signed Beltran and moved Corey to right with Hairston as the back up? Would that have been a better option? Yes I could say all that but does that mean it was a possibility? I have no idea if it was. Can I say that the Cubs should have kept Gutierrez thus not necessitating the Gonzalez trade thus causing no fumbled error in the NLCS and thus not requiring the cubs to dump AGon and find someone else, and perhaps forcing the Cubs to make moves that would add depth to their very very thin SS ranks? Yes I could but it would all be second guessing and rather pointless. The only point that matters for us outsiders was that Hendry had a poor plan and it was executed poorly. It may very well have been the best possible plan in the off season and heading into this season but the fact that it was the best possible plan speaks rather poorly on Hendrys performance as GM. The reason teams like the Braves and A's continue to role even when they lose players to injuries, free agency or trades and having their primary plans not work is because their back up plans work, and when their back up plans don't work, their back up back up plans work.

So then your answer is oh well? So do you think that those back up plans were good? And why were the Cubs put into this position where there only choice was Nomar and Kerry and then dregs if they were injured? To me it is because Hendry has botched the off-seasons for several years and painted himself into this corner. Simply because having Nomar and Neifi as backup was the best possible plan this offseason doesn't mean Hendry did alright or that he is off the hook. This isn't his first year he designed this problem to happen. By not being able to develop any positional players whatsoever the Cubs have a putrid offense. Having a putrid offense means every bat counts, so when Nomar goes down they need to get a bat from somewhere. Because LF and CF are garbage and RF simply ok it means that Neifi as back up hurts much more then it should. This isn't a one year problem.

I am excluding pitchers because I am interested in positional players. The Cubs inability to find talent at the draft and minor league level is something that severely hurts their chances of winning. The Cubs haven't developed a major league talent since Mark Grace. The Cubs best positional players have been a joke and because of that it has forced them to spend assets to rectify this flaw. Plus it does not bode well for the future youngsters either. A poor track record with no discernible change in the way of doing things means it is likely for our future positional players to flop as well.

ALright I just got done looking at the Cubs draft picks from 1990 and on and only the three above got over 2000 AB with the next closest getting about 1100 PA. You have to go back to 1987 to start finding draft picks that were getting significant playing time in the majors. That year it was Alex Arias, and 1986 was probably the last year the Cubs had a good draft in terms of positional players. So in terms of drafting the Cubs have not cut it since losing Dallas Green. It would certainly be interesting to find players not drafted by the Cubs but picked up and developed somewhat by them. You know a minor leaguer that got traded for and then a year or two later he was up and playing. Or a rule V guy or some guy that the Cubs traded for played several years in the Cubs minor league system and then they traded away. Anybody really that shows the cubs have some sort of ability of actually finding or developing major league talent from minor league players.

Glanville fits the mold he was drafted in 1991. So now it is three players. I'm doing a year by year look and so far I have spotted Brant Brown and Kevin Orie as the leading PA getters that are below 2000 PA.

Girardi is a mid 80's pick up. Same with Damon, Dwight, Rick, and Derrick.

Hinske is already there. Its kind of scary to think that he might very well be the best positional player the Cubs have developed in the last 15 years or so. Well him and Corey. Who has the worst record over the last 15 years in terms of developing players? Definitely nots: LA Houston St. Louis Philadelphia Seattle Yankees Atlanta Montreal Boston Cleveland Minnesota Oakland Toronto Kansas City White Sox Anaheim

Okay folks here is a challenge for you. Name positional players from the Cubs farm systems that have managed to get 2000 or more PA at the major league level in the last 15 years or so. The obvious ones of course would be Joe Carter, Shawon Dunston,Rafael Palmeiro, and Mark Grace. But those guys were from the Dallas Green and mid 80's regime. Can anyone name some players that were not from that 80's era? They don't have to have played for the Cubs only merely drafted by the Cubs with a bonus for actually being developed by them. I couldn't think of any so I throw it out to the experts. Note Corey would be one of the answers.

Why? Last year Nomar was hurt throughout the season. Last year and for most Kerry's career he has been hurt. Last year Borowski was injured, Chad Fox's arm was held together by duct tape, and LaTroy was putrid. Why is it unexpected that it would happen again this year?

Can we not all agree that heading into this season the health of at least Kerry Wood and Nomar would be in question? That our bullpen would be shaky and in some cases unhealthy? Can we not all agree that relying LaTroy Hawkins to perform was a risk. That expecting Borowski to come back or for Chad Fox to last the whole season was another big gamble. Do we not all agree that these were huge gambles? And if that is so then doesn't it make some kind of sense to and have some kind of plan in place in case something goes wrong? And what exactly do you think that plan was in case something went wrong? Sadly for me I think the plan was the typical job protection plan. From Hendry down to Baker. For years we fans have scratched our head when Hendry goes out and signs guys like Perez who we know Baker will give playing time over the youngsters. Why does Hendry do this? I think he does this in part because if the Cubs or the players fail the first person to get blamed will be Baker. If Hendry doesn't sign Perez and calls up Cedeno and basically forces Baker to play Cedeno because he has no other option and Cedeno performs like Perez did then the blame falls on Hendry. Baker can say what else could I do he was my only choice. I think it is safe to say that the first one to get the axe will be Baker, and that Hendry will be allowed at least a year or two more as GM past that. Hendry has successfully protected his job by allowing Bakers "choices" to fail instead of his choices failing. How safe would Hendry's job be if he had assembled a team with David Kelton in Left, Corey Patterson in center, Roosevelt Brown in Right, Choi at first, Bobby Hill at second, Cedeno at SS, Ramirez at third and Barrett at Catcher? If that team fails it is Hendry who would get the blame not Baker.

BP has an article about how historic this season is so far for the A's. Only two other teams in the history of the Majors has come from 15 games under or more and finished 15 games. They didn't mention the Astros but they too have a chance of being on that list. At one point they were 15-30. If the Astros go 20-11 in their final games they too will do it.

I would be severely ticked off if the Cubs handed out multiyear contract or trade away talent to acquire bullpen arms.

I'd say that this team isn't really a 100 million dollar team. I would say they over payed for certain talent that they shouldn't have. Plus you have to remember that a good chunk of that money is going to pay for a guy that is not even on the team. Plus the Cubs have 27 million dollars tied up in three guys, two of which are extremely unlikely to contribute much. Nomar and Kerry, with the third being Greg Maddux who you are paying 9 million dollars to be basically you 3rd or 4th starter. The Cubs should have had a cheaper and younger choice for this slot but that can't keep their prospects healthy or they give them away. The Cubs should never have given Remlinger the contract they did and that is another 4 million dollars the Cubs wasted. The Cubs have about 40 million dollars wrapped up in players that either are not going to play much or at all for the Cubs and for a fourth starter. Hendry for the most part has done a good job with his payroll. Walker, Hairston, Lee, Burnit, and almost all of them are either paid just right or underpaid. But he missed the boat when it came time to signing free agent talent. Instead of spending 15 to 18 million dollars on one free agent like Beltran or a Vlad he ended up spending 18 million dollars or so on a 4th starter and a injury prone SS. Others have brought it up before but Hendry may win player trades and acquisitions on a case by case basis but he loses on the bigger picture. The inability of the Cubs to develop a closer or find one on the scrap heap forces them to trade for Antonio Alfonseca, it cost the Cubs a starting pitcher, the Cubs then need a starting pitcher, they then spend 9 million dollars to get Greg Maddux. Cubs refuse to give youngsters a chance, forces the Cubs to get Moises Alou, sets back all OF prospects for 3 or 4 years, Moises leaves nothing in the minors ready or good enough to fill the hole, Cubs go with Vets, signing Vets to million dollar contracts keep Cubs from playing youngsters, Youngsters fail to develop. Like I said above Hendry is a good horse trader but he seems to lack a long range plan, and that has cost the Cubs 90+ win seasons.