User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5848 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Cubs fans don't worry about karma.
I'm generally cranky. Seeing a team with a fine group of young talent not know how to utilize it long-term really annoys me as a fan of baseball.
Without rooting for the Cubs, I still want to see a core of Choi/Hill/Wood/Prior/Zambrano/Pena/Clement/Patterson/Smyth/Beltran with guys like Kelton/Palma/Jackson as role-players. Add Sammy Sosa and a few super values like Mark Bellhorn to the mix and that's a compelling team that I would love to watch play ball.
Watching Estes and Karros intrude would be like watching Robert Wuhl guest-star on Oz or The Wire. It's like eating a cheesesteak on moldy supermarket hot dog rolls.
That's what I find frustrating about the Cubs at the moment. The fact that they seem to have little interest in developing what could be one of the exciting teams of the decade. Does anyone here truly believe that if Choi has a bad April or something, Karros won't be the starting 1B? Or the same with Hill or Grudz if Hill makes two errors in a week?
What makes you think you aren't going to see that, more or less?
Choi/Hill/Wood/Prior/Zambrano/Clement/Patterson are going to make the major league club.
My biggest worry for 2003 is that Karros is going to face any RHP at all in place of Choi, or that Choi will have three bad weeks and be benched or demoted. Fans of what team do not worry about things like that? As for a Choi/Karros platoon at 1B, I'm fine with that. Choi is going to get his chance.
I don't know who this Pena fellow is, but I suppose any club can use a guy named Pena...do you mean Melian?
I like Beltran/Smyth/Kelton/Jackson/Palma a lot, but these are not names I would write on the 2003 roster in indelible ink. My prediction is that three of these guys will appear on the 2003 25-man roster at some point, and one will make a significant positive contribution. Otherwise, I'm thinking 2004, and there isn't a whole heck of a lot blocking any of them from making it.
I've been very cranky about the banality of Hendry's moves this off-season, but I'm not going to criticize the Cubs for failing to introduce their young guys. In fact, I think they were unusually proactive in that regard in 2002.
Oh, and as of this morning, Retail is saying that Bellhorn has the starting 3B job.
He looks to me like roughly the same pitcher at one third the price.
I would say yes.
I agree that Alfonseca is not below replacement level, but that's a pretty low standard for someone you just dropped $4MM for, huh? -- That he's no worse than a guy you can get for league minimum? The problem is wasted resources and, IMO, the very real possibility that the Cubs brass lacks a gameplan, sets improper goals, and ultimately cannot separate the wheat from the chaff. That was something I attributed to Jim Frey, Larry Himes, Ed Lynch, and Andy McPhail; I had better hopes for Jim Hendry.
At least he was quoted in the Tribune today recognizing the possibility that Bellhorn may start at 3B, with Grudzielanek as a backup (I'[ve always feared the opposite).
Walt Cook --
OK, I agree that for the $7MM (or slightly more, considering that he may have taken a "hometown discount"), Kent would have given the Cubs a bigger bang for the buck (so to speak). I guess my focus was on the pitching staff, though (considering that's where they spent on Alfonseca/Estes). There, other than Colon, I'm not so sure there are any real worthy $7MM investments.
I agree, but that's kind of my point -- the Cubs truly believe (or spin) that they are only 3-4 players away, and rather than saving $$$ and using it where it would make a big splash and might make a difference, they spend $3MM here, $4MM there, and none of it on guys that will make a real impact this year or into the future. That's spending money for the sake of spending money, which is just dumb.
Why not recognize that 2003 isn't going to be their year, spend $1MM (or less) on a reliever, give Cruz/Beltran/Smyth/whomever a chance at that 5th starter role, and save yourself $6MM so you have the ability to get a true impact player?
I can't believe that Hendry would sign Dunston. What a waste.
I agree. So far, quite disappointing.
I think that the combination of his .292 BA in 1967 and the fact that his brothers were hitters put the idea in the heads of baseball people that Jesus could hit and no one ever took the time to think about it again.
"Jesus is the answer.
What's the question?
Who is Matty Alou's brother?"
Given their current roster, the Cubs had one need in terms of position players, and that was a backup CFer who can hit LHP. I don't want to see Patterson in a strict platoon, but you don't enter a season where you intend to contend with a guy in the lineup who had <.500 OPS against LHP, and no backup plan. Shinjo, or better yet, Alex Ochoa, would have fit the bill.
O'Leary is not bad as a backup LFer, but he doesn't hit lefties and he isn't going to be very good in CF. Lenny Harris had a good year with the bat in 2002, but come on, that is unlikely ever to happen again, and he sure is hell is not an option in CF. And, the Cubs have too many backup IFers already: Grudzielanek, Martinez, Karros, and Orie make eight infielders total. With five outfielders, two catchers and eleven pitchers, that's 26 players.
I guess it's just an NRI, but Harris is the sort of NRI who makes the club. If he has a good spring it is virtually guaranteed, and that means that someone more deserving (Orie, primarily) won't get a spot.
Overall, this offseason I have been struck by the banality of Retail's off-season transactions. Rather than learning from others and picking relievers from under the sofa cushions of other organizations, he went for the bright shiny stuff in the store window. In this case, my guess is that he was actually impressed by the "most pinch hits of any active player" label. This is no way to run a major league team.
Is it? I mean, is it a skill (obviously it would be valued)?
And if it is, does Lenny Harris have it? Career OPS as PH: .670. Career OPS overall: .675.
Here are his OPS's as a PH by year:
2002 .770
Where did you find Harris' career pinch hitting stats?
I was looking for them on websites, but I couldn't find a place that had them.
Now, Rick! Be nice!
Aaron, you can find career splits of all sorts on yahoo. Go to:
http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlb/players/
and select the player. Hit batting splits, and you will find splits for every year in the player's career (unlike espn.com, which only provides splits for the last three), including splits by position, and PH is listed as a position.
Alternatively, if you do a simple yahoo search with the player name as the query, yahoo always gives you the player profile on yahoo sports as the top hit.
I hope this helps.
The problem is that we will never get the data to answer this question, because the .117 pinch hitter will not get the chance to prove himself otherwise. The only guys who get a large enough sample of PA's as a PH over a career are guys like Harris, and they are rare. Sure enough, his record as a PH is pretty much the same as otherwise. Dave Hansen has a career .786 OPS as a PH, .745 overall. Maybe there is something significant there, but I doubt it. Anyone know anything about splits for guys like Manny Mota? It seems to me that Bill James wrote something about this years ago and I forgot it.
Well, there are at least 2 problems with this:
1) the Cubs haven't been all that successful dangling these guys before. Yes, they amazingly got warm bodies for Jeff Fassero, but nothing to get worked up about.
2) swapping overrated relievers for prospects only makes sense if you're actually going to play those prospects. Instead, those prospects will be bottled up in the minors because next year, you're going to sign overrated relievers and expensive veteran bench players in hopes of flipping them for prospects.
Remlinger and Veres are good pitchers -- somewhat overpaid but good. The rest of the Cubs pen signings have been a waste of money (or worse). There's no reason to think this pen will be any better than one stocked with Cruz, Farnsworth, Beltran, etc.
Why do folks get so worked up about veteran pens? Look at the Braves, who never spend money on their pen (until Smoltz), and always have one of the best. They have no qualms about throwing kids like Spooneybarger, Ligtenberg, etc. in their pen. They have no qualms about signing other teams' detritus to cheap contracts. Heck, who was the Cubs' best reliever last year? Joe Borowski. There's a lesson in that.
Oh well, once again mortgaging the future and wasting money in the hopes of squeaking into the wild card.
In the end, although the team currently looks to have a 12-man pen, I'm not convinced it will stay that way and however it shakes out, I do think it will be for the better compared to last year. Even if the pen is simply league average, that should still make the team 5-6 wins better than last year.
As for Guthrie, he seems a tad overpriced, but that's obviously not something that has stopped Hendry before.
The punchline here is that there is a certain amount of luck that goes into having a championship (or even a playoff) team. I don't think that anyone who visits this site would deny that.
The question, however, is how much of it is just "luck"? jmoultz's post hints that much of it may be luck. If that's the case, the Cubs have as much of a chance as the Angels did, but what about the Pirates or the Brewers for that matter? While I love the implications of this -- it destroys Selig's "hope and faith" claim -- the fact of the matter is that while luck is an element of the equation, it is not the only element; indeed, teams can do things to maximize their chances should things go their way.
Have the Cubs done those things? IMHO, if I were to bet on them, I'd say they've improved from a 67-win team to a team much more likely to be .500, and possibly better (maybe 84-85 wins if they are lucky, 87-88 if they are exceptionally lucky). Not good enough for the playoffs (mainly due to low offense), but at this point I still see 2003 as a necessary rebuilding year, with definite hope for 2004 and beyond.
I think we are both missing each others points. As I read your thoughts, I figured you were saying "sure the Cubs can win -- after all, no one thought the Angels would win and they did." My point was essentially "Sure, everyone has a theoretical chance (even the Brewers and Pirates), but whose chances are the best?" or better stated, "Do the Cubs have a great shot (as you put it) for a division title in 2003?" To that, I personally feel that they've improved and could win, but I wouldn't bet on them to actually do it.
Let's look at it this way: The last three years, the NL Central winners averaged 95 wins. NL wildcard teams averaged 94 wins. Last year's Cubs won 67. Do you really think this year's team will improve by 27-28 wins? If so, (a) where do you think all these extra wins are coming from and (b) can I have some of whatever you're eating/drinking/smoking?
Even if I drink the Cubbie Kool-Aid and figure that bad players improve, good players stay good, and no one worsens, I figure the bullpen is good for about 8 wins compared to last year, the starters about 3 wins, and catcher, the infield, and the outfield are 1 win each. Even keeping in mind they underperformed their Pythag last year by 8 wins, that's about a 20 win improvement at best . . . and like I said, that's if everything falls into place.
Look at it this way -- last year, the Yankees had 5 players with 100+ Ks (Soriano 157, Posada 143, Jeter 114, Giambi 112, and Ventura 101). Despite the fact that these Ks didn't advance runners, they somehow found a way to score 897 runs, most in the AL.
As for Patterson (and Gonzalez to some extent), my problem isn't the strikeouts, per se, it's the lack of walks -- 19 for the year and only about 9 after April. Viewed along with his high Ks, it's obvious the guy had no clue about the strike zone . . . or even the importance of having a clue. That frightens me greatly.
Keep in mind the Pythag wins for the Cubs last year were 75. So they need to improve by 15 or so to have a good shot at the wild card? Let's say the pitching improvements give them 5. Cause that's a nice number.
Pos. +/- Comment:
Infield
Simply put, your analysis assumes everyone improves and essentially has career years, even Sosa. That never happens, even on the Angels. Instead, every team has some players who improve, some who do about the same, and some who decline. In the Angels case, they had far more improve, but I don't think even Shredder is figuring more of the same for 2003. It also has too many "cans" (i.e., Bellhorn can improve, Gonzalez can improve) -- I'm not saying they can't improve, but I'm not guaranteeing it either (as you do with Patterson).
Overall, I agree with Kyle that last year's team was better than 67 wins -- not only does their Pythag prove that, but I lost a good hunk of change on just that fact. The "Plexiglass" principle alone would seem to make them improve 4-5 games.
Beyond that, let me run through my basic analysis (as briefly as I can). Keep in mind this is (A) optimistic and (B) extremely crude (think "back of a napkin"). As you'll see, it actually comes fairly close to Stevens's above:
Starting Pitchers
The question isn't really +/-, though; it's the magnitude. A 28-win improvement would be historic and I simply don't see that. Barring any other big changes, I'd bet on a 13-15 game improvement to .500 (which is itself quite a bit), with solid hope for playoff contention in 2004.
As for your "winning and losing are both contagious" section and that the Cubs need confidence (or put another way, they need to "learn how to win", I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
-- I'm not saying Bellhorn will decline; I'm saying that there's at least an equal shot of him declining as improving. In the end, I'm assuming a push.
Going into last year, I was one of Bellhorn's biggest supporters (and I still am). I was demanding he'd make the team out of Spring Training, thrilled that he was playing (and well), and since the end of the season, I've been pleading his case to be the Cubs regular 3B over Mueller, Lowell, or anyone else they were suspected of bringing in. When people discuss Bellhorn's high Ks, I've come to his defense (both in this forum and others). Make no mistake: I'm a Bellhorn guy.
Having said that, even I didn't expect he would put up an EqA of .304, second on the team. It wasn't his projection going into last year and I can certainly the possibility that it drops into the .280-.290 range in 2003. Not saying it will happen, but could -- at least there's as much of a chance of that happening as having an EqA in the.320 range, no?
Starters (5 + 3): Wood, Prior, Clement, Zambrano, Estes, (Sirotka, Benes, Smyth)
No, you stopped walking in mid-May or so.
I'm not sure I have the burden of proof here. Goodwin was NOT given a roster spot. Everyone here is assuming he will be given one someday, but if that was the case I don't see why he wasn't given one now? What is the benefit of signing him to a minor-league contract if you are already planning on him being the backup center-fielder?
Flexibility. Yes, there are alternatives to Goodwin being on the 25-man roster and the backup CF, but I agree with those who are saying it is the most likely scenario.
And yes, Patterson may play every day, giving the backup CF little to do. In that case, we can only hope that Patterson betters his 2002 .480 OPS against LHP.
Lenny Harris: Yes, I did forget about you (perhaps I wanted to forget). Considering he's also an NRI, I'll add him as an (infielder), to lead to a total of 7 + 3
Lyman Bostock: You're right that they played Moreland as a RF and Durham as an OF (though I thought it was RF, not CF), but (a) at the time they got Moreland, he had played 113 of his 120 MLB games at C, where they had Jody Davis at C -- where else should they have played Moreland?, (b) Durham came up as an OFer with the Cardinals, and (c) either way, that's going back quite a ways, no? After all, at that point in time, neither MacPhail, Hendry, Baker, nor anyone else affiliated with the team was there. You might as well be referring to position choices made during the Charlie Grimm era.
Kyle: I'm not so sure who has the "burden of proof," per se; while you are correct in noting that Goodwin isn't on the 25-man roster, I think it's just as pertinent to note that teams don't normally play with only 4 OFers. In other words, I think it's safe to assume they'll make a move to bring in Goodwin or someone else. So long as whomever it is doesn't curtail Patterson's development, that's OK. I just think it'll be interesting to see whom they drop/trade/demote.
Kyle/Vlad -- The "benefit" of signing Goodwin to a minor league deal with an NRI isn't just the 40-man roster; it's also the fact that you don't have to add him to the 25-man roster as well (see above).
He did have a much better year in 2000 -- which made him one of the top propects in all MLB, then slipped a bit in 2001 and completely fell off the table last year (as you note).
Paul and I got reaquainted in our adult years when he pitched for the Okla. City 89ers (Ranger AAA team) and I lived in Okla. City.
Paul is just one of the most genuine people you'd ever want to meet. He has never forgotten his roots or his friends.
I hope you get a chance to meet him in person sometime. He's a great guy.
Ummm...the postponement has already been cancelled. 273/323/355 for a whopping 678 OPS. Even Bellhorn has a higher OPS. :-) Say, how's Bobby Hill doing?
The Cubs would do better to find a starting LF (Moises OPS of 705 is not encouraging).
It amazes me that ESPN's Bellhorn page still has him in an A's cap.
-- Theoretically, it could have happened, but of course it's too late now.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/duceyro01.shtml
I am confused by Steve Lombardozzi since B-R shows him going to the Astros and spending over a year with them before dropping out of MLB. He'd have had to go back to the Twins for his statement to be true.
I would hardly call Grudzielanek's defense "indifferent." He has a more than respectable .825 ZR and he's turned 53 double-plays. All told, even as he regresses to his career means as a hitter, he's probably still been a slightly above average contributor. I would like to see him go away and not come back, but not because of his defense.
I also think Hill has star potential, and would call Chuck Knoblauch as representing the extreme end of reasonable on the optimism scale. Will he get there? Probably not, but he has the ability and he has shown signs of it in his pro career.
Is this move due to Borowski's meltdown today vs. the Brewers?
With Patterson's injury, you're just a Shawon Dunston away from making your "real" lineup come to life. Congratulations.
Priceless.
"Morons! I have morons on my payroll!"
See the homepage link for a summary of the various disabled lists over time.
-- MWE
What was really sick about the little action figures is that eventually, every kid with a small screwdriver turned a bunch of his Joes into an unholy body workshop in which the less popular figures had their limbs harvested in order to replace broken limbs of the more popular soldiers.
Even if Kelton's CF experiment turned out with him being the equivalent of Dwayne Murphy, the idiot manager of the Cubs wouldn't play him. It's too bad that Dusty Baker doesn't look for players that remind him of himself - getting chances when they're young, hitting well, and retiring as soon as they start to stink.
I think Choi has had a decent season. The only issue is that he isn't getting any playing time. I guess I can understand that given Karros has gone into a time warp and is having a nice season. What I don't get at all is why Choi isn't a prime choice off the bench in pinch hitting situations.
Rant #2. I was listening to the WGN Sports Radio talk program after Sundays game (I know, I know I shouldn't, it just makes me angry). But they were discussing how crappy Wendell Kim is and how if you want to have a genius like Dusty Baker as a manager, then you have to put up with having guys like Kim around. This to me, would be evidence that Baker is highly overrated. He's a genius, so he does stupid things like employ Wendell Freaking Kim?
Dusty Baker, NOT A GENIUS!
Brian C (#5) -- I agree that the buck ultimately stops with Hendry, but have we been watching the same team? After watching TFG, TFO'L, and LFH get 429 appearances, how can you say that "Dusty has a major problem with playing guys who really suck"? Also, if you honestly believe that Dusty had nothing to do with the team's decision to put Martinez, TFG, and LFH on the 25-man roster, you're being naive. It's loyalty -- the same loyalty that keeps Wendell Kim as the 3rd base coach.
Clayton Wilcox (#12) -- Although I agree the team was a .500 squad a few weeks ago, (a) I don't think the Cubs have been selling anything they'll really miss from their farm system, and (b) the 'Stros and Cards have been weak enough that a few moves gives the team a realistic shot at the division.
They won't miss Hernandez or Bruback, probably won't miss Fransz, and even if the PTBNL is Hill, I don't have a problem losing him either -- struggling at AAA at the age of 25 (+4% OPS, -8% SEC), I'm not convinced he'll be an All-Star by any means and see him quite possibly as the next Chad Meyers, rather than the next Bret Boone.
I do worry, though, about what they will do in the offseason. Coming into this year, I liked the fact that Grudzielanek, Karros, TFO'L, et al. were one year temps, but now that the team has had a semi-successful run, what will they do? Will they resign any/all of these guys? For how much? The thought that they'd resign Grudzielanek for $4MM, for instance, scares the bejeezus out of me almost as much as resigning Karros at all.
Jack Vincennes (#14) -- If they get Stairs, I see him as the 4th OF/lefty bat that TFO'L isn't giving us. I think it'd be a good move, provided (a) they don't give up anything of real value and (b) they don't allow the move to push Choi further down the bench. I'm starting to think, though, that I'd rather see Choi getting ABs in Iowa than splinters in Chicago.
I am generally not a negative sports fan, but there is something about this version of the Cubs that is driving me crazy. Perhaps it is my perception that they are on the verge of something, and that they'd rather piss it away to win a wild card then do the right things to make themselves a dynasty. I mean, what is the hurry, we've been a long for the ride this freaking long, who's jumping at this point?
Jack Vincennes -- "Lenny Freaking O'Goodwinville" is priceless. I'll have to immediately steal it and use it as my own without proper attribution. Sorry in advance.
Oh, and as for pissing a dynasty away for the sake of a WC, I'm afraid of that as well, but at least they haven't done it . . . yet.
Palmeiro rejects trade to Cubs
Alas, Grudzielanek gets hurt, leading to Augie Ojeda's call-up on the same day. That's some sort of karma that I'm too simple-minded to understand.
Christian says he's working on putting Harris' ineptitude into historical context, over at The Cub Reporter.
And the Cub site at MLB has an article on Harris that features effusive praise from Baker, and a quote from Lenny referring to himself in the third person. Apparently, he was one of the privileged few who was allowed to touch Sammy's boom box.
Hill's on the DL, and now there's loose talk of the pirates taking someone else, since they landed Sanchez.
I don't even know what to say.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main