A little more than a year ago, I wrote this post discussing the merits of statistical analysis and the merits of "other" analysis of baseball players; both have value, and the point of writing it was to ask for neither "side" to be as strident as they sometimes had become in saying "well, Player A is without question more valuable than Player B because this statistic is better and you cannot contradict me", or "I like so-and-so's scrappiness and so he's great and nothing else matters!"
Reaction to that post, if you check through the comments, was thoughtful and positive and I appreciated it. I raise this again now because recently, some baseball statistical analysts including Rany Jazayerli of Baseball Prospectus hosted "Sabermetrics Night at the Cell", a presentation of statistical methodology held in front of about 100 people in the conference center at the south side ballpark.
One thing Lindsey Willhite's article in the Daily Herald, linked above, points out is that the BP crew now understands that statistics don't necessarily tell the whole story:
Three years ago, BP hired Kevin Goldstein (and his Rolodex filled with scouts' numbers) away from Baseball America to provide the scouting perspective that they'd derided for so long.
"The more you learn, the more you realize what you don't know," Jazayerli said. "When we started, we thought statistical analysis was maybe not the only way, but was certainly the dominant way to be successful in running a baseball team.
"Just like 'Moneyball' isn't about walks, it's about the process, I think that's what Baseball Prospectus is about. We're trying to gain knowledge wherever it comes from. If that means admitting you're wrong sometimes, then so be it."
While I do very little statistical analysis on this site, anyone who thinks I don't understand advanced metrics is simply wrong. All I've ever said is that those shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of analysis of baseball players. There was a lot of heated discussion on this site last winter over the merits of the Cubs signing either Milton Bradley or Adam Dunn (as most of you know, I favored Dunn). It was said by some that 100 games worth of Bradley would be worth more than a full season of Dunn.
Going strictly by the numbers, that may very well be true. We have, however, seen some of the same troubles Milton Bradley had in several of his other major league stops come to pass here in Chicago as well -- a minor dustup with an umpire that dragged on forever before ending in a one-game suspension; injuries that kept him out of the lineup for two weeks without a DL stint, forcing the team to play a man short for that time and having him at less than full strength for much of the year; and one really, really bad day in the field and on the basepaths (granted, none of the misplays last Friday actually likely cost the Cubs anything). I don't think anyone can seriously argue that at this point in the 2009 season, the Cubs wouldn't have been better off with Dunn, who is among the league leaders in walks, runs, HR, RBI and OPS and who has not missed a game. Bradley's problem may be -- and note, I say "may" -- that he's trying too hard to live up to expectations and the large contract he signed. In this sense, his aggressiveness and passion for the game may be working against him.
And that's what I mean when I say, as I have often written here, "there are things about winning baseball games that you cannot measure on a stat sheet." There are things I have learned from various sources over the years about a number of Cubs players that I cannot and will not post on this site, things that would clearly affect their abilities to play the game at the highest level, and things that might have wound up getting them removed from the club when otherwise people would scratch their heads saying, "Why'd they dump him?" or "Why are they not dumping him?" There are factors that we DO know about -- example: the illness of Ryan Dempster's newborn -- that clearly have an influence on a player's performance, because they can take the focus off playing baseball.
All I have ever asked here is for people who are more statistically-oriented than I am to not say things like, "This player IS better than this player because of these numbers" -- you can only predict possible future performance from numbers, not make set-in-stone statements like that. Or "This player is bad at baseball." Not one major league player is "bad" at baseball; they wouldn't have gotten to the major leagues if they were "bad". Their performance can be poor and (cough Aaron Miles cough) we see that on a daily basis these days. At the same time, I pledge to you that I'll listen to you if you want to make a statistically-oriented argument in favor of, or against, a certain player, if you won't be dogmatic about it.
Mainly, I just wanted to provide a topic for discussion while we wait for tonight's game... these 48-hour gaps between games seem a lot longer than that, don't they? Fire away (but please, be nice to each other!).
0 recs | 378 comments
I think I have a pretty mixed bag approach to this stuff
I really like stats, and I think they are very useful. There are times though where they can be used too much in spite of there being a mountain of “watching the game” evidence.
I think Fukudome last season pretty much sums this up. Statistically speaking perhaps he wasn’t as awful overall as a lot of us remember, but watching those games the last two months of the season there isn’t a person who would think Dome was productive.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Bingo!
You have nailed it, Al. The so-called “intangibles”, etc. The numbers are a means but not the final story. Athletes are still human and how they mesh with one another in a team setting, etc. will also add to the mix.
How many times have we seen a can’t miss prospect miss? Or vice-versa? That’s why they play the games lol
BigJohnAZ - June 16, 2009
I like sabermetrics because they help you
quantify a lot of the impressions you get from watching a player.
Being able to put a number/meaning on something you thought you saw is really cool, but that doesn’t mean it tells the "whole story’
Allie - June 16, 2009
Off the topic...
but I think we can all agree that Mondays are bad enough without the Cubs taking 4 straight off.
Kansas25 - June 16, 2009
Next Monday is no longer an off day.
They’ll be playing a makeup game in Atlanta from the June 4 rainout.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
tony412 - June 16, 2009
No doubt there's more to it than stats
I personally can think of a million scenarios. Neal Cotts, poor guy was horrible and I think he knew it. Imagine him going out to the mound praying he can get thru the inning. Bobby Scales, having spent so many years in the minors, just hoping to stick around. Demp and DLee with their daugthers. Dome, moving to a new country and a new way of life. They’re all human, and many people think their contract, or money, is supposed to help these guys ignore everything else that is happening in their lives because now they owe us. That’s just not realistic.
tony412 - June 16, 2009
Somewhat off-topic, but
I moved to this country at the tender age of 20 to go to college in Minnesota. I missed the old country like crazy, but I adapted and excelled. I finished my four-year education in two+summers and graduated with honors. I would like to think that I’m a bit more frail than a professional baseball player. But Idunno…
Am I to ignore how much I hate my boss and my job? Why, yes. While I feel as if my soul dies a little bit every day I spend here, I am also aware he/they are paying me for my expertise and time, which involves a certain amount of crap-eating. There are no jobs out there right now, so I need to learn to tolerate the taste of crap.
Does Milton Bradley hate Lou Piniella and/or the Cubs? Who knows. But his contract is signed and he’s expected to provide his expertise/time. I don’t think there is another job for him out there right now, so he better learn to tolerate the taste of crap.
The Cubs don’t owe us. If anything, they’re in debt to their employer. It is realistic for their employer to demand a bit more/better production from its employees.
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
Don't disagree with you
but that’s not what we’re arguing here. I too feel I have to do the best possible job, for my employer, for my family and for myself. But that’s not to say there aren’t days when regardless of all of this, I feel like crap and don’t feel like I’m giving my best. There are times when my mind is just somewhere else and no matter how much I love my job, or my income or anything else, it’s not realistic to expect anyone to have an on/off switch for this type of stuff. That’s all.
tony412 - June 16, 2009
I got'cha
Very well said.
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
We should both go work for Inetrode.
The people to cake ratio is better.
Agreed on the Employer/Employee thing.
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
numbers
From the Talking Heads, “Crosseyed & Painless”
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts dont do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts dont stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
Facts are static objects whose value is dependent on perception. Remember, Leon Durham? I’ve never seen a guy hit more home runs in the eighth inning with nobody on base and the Cubs down by 7. Yet he was a two-time all-star.
“Clutch” can’t be defined by sheer numbers.
milesdavis - June 16, 2009
any time I think Clutch isn't real
I think of guys like Geoff Blum in baseball. Robert Horry and Derek Fisher in basketball. Then I know that yes clutch is for real.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Adam Vinatieri
tony412 - June 16, 2009
Good one
Couldn’t think of a football example. Clutch is going to get Vinatieri HOF consideration.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
+1
I can’t seem to face up to the facts.
katie casey - June 16, 2009
Tense and nervous?
Can’t relax?
MN exile - June 16, 2009
I'd suggest "All Blues"....
As the counter-point….
No words…just “clutch”….
kcjones - June 16, 2009
Stats don't tell the story, but they're a lot easier to work with.
Which is why, in general, I think they’re a lot more germane to the discussion than intangibles.
Gary Sheffield jaking it because he wants to get out of Milwaukee is an intangible with an appreciable effect on the outcome of a game.
The so-called “clubhouse guy”, the glue that holds a team together…well, not so much.
Catchers’ ability to call a good game or their ability to calm down a wild pitcher: both intangibles, and probably worth a win here or there.
When a guy is a “gamer”…uh, what the hell does that even mean?
So I think we can agree there are a multitude of things stats don’t cover. The problem is we can’t really assign a value to them. Is the guy who fires teammates up worth more than the guy who makes teammates laugh? What’s the conversion ratio for scrappy to gamer? Just like some stats (OBP, WHIP, BABIP) are better than others (BA, Wins), some intangibles are more meaningful than others.
Once you introduce intangibles, you throw any ability to compare and contrast out the window. Stats try to turn everything to apples. Intangibles turn every player into a fruit stand.
That’s the point, though, right? That’s why stats are overvalued. But here’s the thing, if you have a bunch of stuff that you can quantify, and a bunch of stuff you can’t, one of those things is going to give you a better ability to attempt to determine the quality of a player. That’s how you end up with the feel-good stories like Josh Hamilton, whose intangibles were, how you say, not so good.
So I guess my point is that while “intangibles” aren’t something you can just flat-out ignore, everyone’s going to value them differently, making it very hard to have a reasoned discussion about the merits of a given player.
redward - June 16, 2009
Sure, stats are a useful tool to measure a player's ability...
… and his potential to contribute in various situations.
You can’t say what the “good clubhouse guy” contributes unless you are in the clubhouse. I say that’s important. You may disagree. We can still have reasoned discussions about this issue.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
A “good clubhouse guy” may help, but who can say how much? One win? One run? There are very good teams that didn’t get along well at all.
Actually, I wonder if there’s any data on whether people who make the work environment more pleasant increase productivity. That would probably translate relatively well, and would at least provide some kind of quantitative value.
redward - June 16, 2009
You've missed the point.
The contributions of the good clubhouse guy can’t be quantified in “one run” or “one win”.
The A’s teams of the 1970’s are often cited as a team that hated each other and won. That isn’t exactly true. Their “hate” was actually somewhat focused: many disliked their manager and owner. They channeled that into winning. How? Sorry, that can’t be quantified.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Dave Stewart was on the radio yesterday
talking about the 1990 World Series. While he gave credit to Cincinnati, he also said that the A’s were fighting amongst themselves throughout October. Apparently, Jose Canseco refused to listen to scouting reports, and would not accordingly move in the outfield. Bob Welch, Stewart and Carney Lansford nearly came to blows with Canseco over it – during a World Series, no less.
Now, would a better clubhouse atmosphere have helped the A’s, and maybe brought them another World Series title? Possibly. But you could also make the argument that the A’s don’t make the World Series without Canseco. I think therein lies the dilemma.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
I also remember...
… the 1980 Phillies stating that their team, a group of veteran personalities who didn’t all like each other, united in their dislike of Dallas Green as their manager.
Green, who was a fine GM for the Cubs, apparently was pretty well hated by his players as a field manager.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
That's the Bob Knight mentality.
In years in which the team had no apparent cohesion, Knight made sure his players united by hating him. And for a long while, it worked.
I think sometimes that was how Lou was too, in his earlier years as a manager.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Players ruling the clubhouse?
Was Dusty in charge?
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Tony LaRussa.
Though with guys like Carney Lansford and Dave Stewart in the clubhouse, I wouldn’t have worried too much about needing to take care of things – those two could handle most matters in-house.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
LaRussa couldn't control somebody
Hmm. He never had that problem anywhere else right?
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Never.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Well then we can add that to the impressive list
of Jose Canseco being a douche.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
ISWYDT
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
I may as well own up
I was going to name the 70s A’s, although I was going to admit that they had the common enemy in Finley.
I’m not trying to say intangibles can’t be a part of the discussion, I’m just saying that you can’t argue them in the same breath as stats.
Personally, I think you need to compare stats first to get a baseline, and then you can start to sort out the other outside factors, so when you say “all things being equal” you can know that all other things are actually equal.
redward - June 16, 2009
I think you can discuss the intangibles
I’d agree with this part of your last paragraph:
I think the most important part of that statement is that the front office and management be on the same page as to how they value the intangibles. When they are able to strike the right balance between talent and intangibles, I think the results often turn out pretty well.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Let's say you went to the doctor
And the doctor told you, “You need to start eating better. You have a high cholesterol, and statistics have shown that this increases your chances of dying of heart disease.”
What do you do? Do you click your tongue and say, “Sorry doctor, but statistics don’t live my life,” and go get 6 jellies on your way home?
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
That's not really a comparable situation, is it?
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Sure it is.
You’re trying to make a prediction on the future performance of your heart. Basically, you have to decide whether or not to change your lifestyle and habbits.
You have certain things you know – you know certain statistics about yourself – your cholesterol, your weight, your blood pressure. You know what the past performance of similar hearts has been, based on the studies that put you at risk.
However, your heart has certain intangible qualities that will factor into your mortality. Things that are difficult or impossible to measure, such as genetic factors, that will absolutely affect your heart’s future performance.
In other words, the doctor’s prediction is not perfect – he knows that; the statisticians who did the studies know that; on some level, you may even know that. The cholesterol reading does not tell the whole story, to use the cliché many of you love. The statistics that put you at risk will not live your life. There is a strong chance that you can go on eating a stick of butter a day for the rest of your life and die of old age, not heart disease.
Yet I think in this case, most people would listen to their doctor. Why? Because when we make decision like this we use the information we know, not the information we don’t know. (Also we don’t romanticize medicine the way we romanticize baseball, nor would we presume to know more than our doctors the way we do with our general managers and managers.) Even though we know that prediction isn’t perfect, it’s the best one we have, and so maybe that salad isn’t a bad idea for lunch after all.
Statistics represent what we know, nothing more. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn’t understand what they are.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
Nicely done!
McRipper - June 16, 2009
Here's the problem with your extended metaphor
Doctor’s deal with natural sciences. Baseball stats are a pseudo-scientific version of social science which is a pseudo-science to begin with… all though social scientists will disagree.
Natural sciences deal with certainties… there are laws in natural sciences. The same quantity of the same chemical will have the exact same properties all the time unless something changes. With controls and variables we can reach conclusions which are 100% true… all the time.
Social sciences study people. People are irrational. They act one way one way day, and another way on the next. They do things that are self-destructive (i.e. smoke cigarettes) for reasons that defy logic.
THAT is why your analogy has some merit, but it is limited. Doctor’s predictions are based on the laws and body of knowledge available in the natural sciences. People are not like the natural world, and can’t be measured or predicted as such.
Statistics are not a “representation of what we know.” They are a measurement of what has happened. This may be a distinction without a difference, or it may be important because using the word “know” could lend itself to someone talking with more certainty that they should… which is what I hear a lot of statisticians a sabermagicians doing.
It’s great to measure what has happened. But that does not provide as solid an indicator of what will happen in the future as some would have you believe.
Reddevil - June 16, 2009
Exactly what I was trying to say.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Really? EXACTLY?
Why didn’t you just say so, then? ;-)
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
literally.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
I bet Al
wouldn’t have included all the ridiculous typos and redundancies.
Reddevil - June 16, 2009
I'm not sure
medicine is as exact a science as you seem to suggest; for example:
My son has taken a few different kinds of medicine for his ADD as we’ve figured out which one to use.
One worked great, but not for long enough. Another one was supposed for work longer, but didn’t work at all.
The weird part? They’re both the same drug, EXCEPT for the part that makes the time-release work differently.
If medical science were more exact, they wouldn’t have to try so many different drugs to get the right one (which, by the way, we found, and everyone is much happier).
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
If medicine isn't science then I'm an eleven dollar hooker like Elisabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas.
It’s called the scientific method.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
I didn't say it wasn't science
I said it wasn’t as exact as the OP suggested.
In a year, Max’s meds may not work as well. That’s because people’s body chemistry changes.
I know people who have had cancer, and it’s spontaneously gone into remission. My wife had a condition she was unaware of for over a decade, the doctor couldn’t explain why she hadn’t been in dire pain since 1999.
There’s plenty about medical science we can’t explain.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
I feel like I’m in Kansas arguing creationism and evolution. Oh, wait. I am in Kansas. Crap.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
lol
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Actually, it's a very apt metaphor
The science is the reason the doctor knows the cholesterol is likely to lead to heart disease. The statistics are what led to the scientists figuring that out, and also what tell the doctor how long you likely have to live with no change in behavior.
The doctor’s predictions are based in statistics. Just like the sabermagician’s,
redward - June 16, 2009
This is more tangential than a reply...
I would argue that the Natural Science are just as guilty of overstating the confidence they should have in their “certainties.” While chemistry by definition deals in elemental studies that easily translate into the isolation of variables, most laws in hard sciences are actually just presuppositions that as yet we haven’t found a counter-example too.
Physics (whether Astro or quantum) and biology are the best examples of this. Most of the understood laws of each are true in so far as we haven’t been able to prove them false; but in almost all cases scientists cannot rationally determine that their laws should/will always apply. Einstein was big on noting that, for example.
In other words, all fields are guilty in varying degrees to the sin of over-confidence that you describe.
While this doesn’t really negate your point, as a social scientist, I feel the need to knock hard scientists off their annoying pedastal. :)
CubsWin!Oregon - June 16, 2009
Well, any metaphor breaks down if you look too closely at it
…that said, you’re still wrong.
Baseball is not a random spontaneous event that happens unpredictably and without precedent. It follows laws and rules as well – the rules of baseball, the laws of physics, etc. Like science, if it were possible to account for all of the variables involved, it would be 100% predictable.
But it isn’t, and neither is medical science. When I get diagnosed with cancer, and the doctor tells me that I have a 75% chance of living, he’s saying that because he’s uncertain what my outcome will be, but he knows what has happened in the past in similar situations based on statistical analysis and medical studies.
Likewise, when Aramis Ramirez comes to bat and I say he has a 40% chance of getting a hit, it’s because although I’m uncertain what the outcome will be I know what he has done in the past.
Statistics are a representation of what we know – we know what has happened, not what will happen. We ascribe this uncertainty to chance, but that’s simply a nice way of saying we can’t account for all the variables involved. However, like medical science, this uncertainty doesn’t stop us from using the information we do have to make decisions based on calculated risk.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
One last rebuttal
…because as definitively as you state I am wrong… I am not.
Let’s take Aramis Ramirez, Professional Hitter. We have his career stats.
Now let us ask him to go out and bat for an extended period… say one season (just to get rid of that pesky “sample size” argument.) It is likely he will hit something close to his career stats assuming we didn’t ask him to do this at age 85 or something. It is likely because it doesn’t appear there is anything dramatically different impacting what we have seen in the past. Aramis Ramirez can hit. He may be able to hit at 85, but probably not as well as he does at 30. But his performance at 30 could change. Take the next hypo as an example.
Let’s ask Aramis to do the same thing… go out and hit every day for one season, but this time let’s force him to watch some one beat his mother… every day… before he goes out to hit. This might effect his performance, no? Could this not potentially impact his “40% chance of getting a hit?”
This is an extreme example, but my point is this. You can’t take something from nature and effect its performance the same way you can with a person. Hydrogen won’t react differently with oxygen one day because it is “sad” or “depressed” or “having a bad day.” A person can and will on occasion. People have feelings and react to things in irrational ways.
This is pretty elementary. I think you should be able to see the distinction.
If you can’t at least acknowledge there is some validity to what I’m saying then I’ll just wink and say, “you win.”
Reddevil - June 16, 2009
I understand your argument, but would say two things...
First of all, the original poster was talking about a medical situation which DOES deal with people. Stress in a person’s life as you describe above will affect them… whether it’s their slash stats or their chance of a heart attack. As a medical professional, my job would be a whole lot easier if it was an exact science where this didn’t happen.
Second, Rami’s statistical regression you describe above happens when you introduce a variable to the equation (seeing his mother getting beaten, or substitute that with depression or whatever else you want). Hydrogen will react the same way to Oxygen, but if you introduce a variable to the equation, chemicals will usually react differently as well.
claypot33 - June 16, 2009
Again...no.
If we’re going off the now poor bloodied and beaten doctor metaphor, it’s not the hydrogen and oxygen. It’s the fact that the patient didn’t tell the doctor that his family has a history of heart disease unrelated to cholesterol. The patient goes on the prescribed diet and Lipitor and ends up dying of a heart attack anyway.
Those are the “intangibles” in medicine. And it’s the same thing in baseball. Intangibles are something we either don’t yet know of or can’t yet quantify. In 50 years or so, we’ll have splits for batting average with and without beaten mothers. The science just isn’t in yet.
redward - June 16, 2009
Yes, this.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
What is a more solid indicator of future performance than statistical measures?
What has greater predictive value than mathematical probability?
Acapulco Taco Pie - June 16, 2009
Your point isn't obvious from your question
I assume your point is this: “Stats are the best predictor of performance, and therefore people should believe what they indicate.”
Just because stats measure the past and we use that measurement to try and predict future performance, and stats are obviously helpful, and probably are the most helpful resource we have for predicting future performance… this does not mean they are not without limitations. And the limitations of statistical analysis create problems when people employ them as if they are hard and fast predictors of the future.
They are not flawless, and it is good to keep this in mind. Just because Milton Bradley was productive in Texas does not mean the pressure of this new contract (or any other stimulus the issue-laden ballplayer may be working with) has no impact on his ability to perform.
Stats are helpful when Soriano is batting .230 for the year in mid-June because he has historically hit much higher than .230, and barring an unfixable situation (e.g. a lingering knee injury) it is unlikely he will sustain such a drop in production for an entire season.
I’ve lost sight of wreckard’s point re: the “medical analogy” above, but if he feels that comparing baseball stats to the practice of medicine is helpful then it’s no skin off my nose.
Reddevil - June 16, 2009
You sure about that?
Better check with a dermatologist first… ;-)
ballhawk - June 16, 2009
I think it was more your point
That baseball statistics is a pseudo science.
There’s nothing magical about baseball stats. They’re the same as actuarial tables, just not as grim and working off a smaller sample size.
redward - June 16, 2009
I think it is
if you tell the doctor that you have David Eckstein in your house, who has been on two World Series teams who have never had heart disease, proving that you will therefore not get heart disease.
redward - June 16, 2009
huh?
cubsnlinux - June 16, 2009
Your shtick is getting old... real fast.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
Please elaborate
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
Is that a no?
I would like to know what my schtick is, and specifically what about it is getting old. Don’t just make a comment like that and run away.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
The stubborn devil's advocate shtick.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
It's not devil's advocate.
He’s making the argument he believes in. And he is not the only one who believes it.
It was a sound argument without negativity and there was no need for you to take offense.
Kansas25 - June 16, 2009
How am I playing devil's advocate here?
Look through my posting history. I’m extremely consistent with my opinions. I occasionally even express those opinions with something that vaguely resembles respect.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
He does seem to play Devils advocate
But every time I have seen him argue he is still consistent and backs up what he believes.
jkobus - June 16, 2009
If one were to passively read through your posts over the last 2 days
They may have developed the same opinion I have.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
Over the past 2 days I've made the following cases
1) That trading Rich Harden is a bad idea, and wouldn’t net you that much anyway
2) That the immeasurable things that happen on the baseball field really have no bearing whatsoever on the value of statistics. Not because they don’t exist, but because they’re not relevant.
Look, you and I just aren’t going to agree on a lot of things – we’re fundamentally different people. I believe in the value of analysis, while like to trust your gut. I think one of the most fun things about baseball is our ability to quantify and predict so much of it because it’s awesome seeing where these things go wrong and where they go right, where you might like to just take the sport for what it is, one day at a time. Heck, the differences go even deeper than that – you’re a SackMan, where I’m more of a boob man. It’s just different strokes, you know?
But I’ve made my points patiently and as fun as possible, and with respect when merited. I guess I’m just not sure where this stern and somewhat patronizing rebuke is coming from.
Unless by “Devil’s Advocate” you mean “Disagreeing with Al?” That seems to be the only common theme I can see with my last 2 days of posting that you might find objectionable.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
Funny
That your sig seems positive on replacing a guy who did a lot of things right, worked his butt off, was loved and respected by his teammates, but didn’t have great stats, with a guy who whined his way out of one town, is constantly carousing, but had way better stats.
Old Style & Ivy - June 16, 2009
Ohhh... so sad.
You’re upset because we replaced this guy
With a 26 year old Pro Bowl QB.
You’re probably still bitter that we let go of Mike Tomczak too.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
i went to the same school as him and
he is AWESOME!
just not at football…
desmoCubbie - June 16, 2009
Here's Orton in some of his more "classy" moments
But… shhhhh… don’t tell Old Style & Ivy that NFL QBs in their mid 20’s with gobs of money like to carouse and bang chicks.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
Kyle orton
One of the first internet drinking pic people ever, and always my favorite.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
You missed the point
But that’s not a surprise. Your shtick is also pretty tired.
Old Style & Ivy - June 16, 2009
Don't act like...
… if you weren’t in your 20’s and starting for a professional sports team you wouldn’t be actin’ a fool in the same way.
AndrewJStone - June 16, 2009
Hey... as I said above
“NFL QBs in their mid 20’s with gobs of money like to carouse and bang chicks.” Orton does it, and so does Cutler.
And both of them work hard on the field… just so happens that Cutler makes plays that Orton can’t.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
Orton use to.
Since he got married he’s changed his ways.
sue369 - June 16, 2009
Wow, did you see me that day in the doc's office
and in my car? I thought I was incognito eating my jellies! lol
BigJohnAZ - June 16, 2009
Great post Al,
Just like you, I am a little of both, like the stats but realize they do not tell the whole story.
Perfect example, what stat could you point to for Sundays game was the game winner? You could say Dlee had a single, Soto had a single, a walk and another single from Theriot. But, for me it was DLee taking the extra base on the base hit to left that ignited the team and made the game winnable. The extra base by DLee does not show up as OPS, BaBip, or whatever stat is popular. But read the comments from the Cubs after the game and they will tell you how that extra base ignited them. Definition of an intangible.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
technically, you can measure how often a player takes an extra base...
so stats can measure that. That’s not really an intangible. Just saying…
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Yes, you can.
But you can’t measure a player’s thought process in thinking, “I’m going to do that right now because we need someone to be aggressive, and that someone’s going to be me, even though the chances of me being thrown out are pretty good.”
The throw beat him and he would have been out if Tolbert hadn’t dropped the ball.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
But you can measure how often the player makes the correct decision...
Which is ultimately what is valuable. If Lee decides to be aggressive and gets thrown out there, nobody’s happy. Stats can measure good baserunning decisions as well as good aggressive baserunning decisions, which are an excellent proxy for thought process in this particular case.
It’s not a good intangible if you get lucky. Arguing that the thought process was good because he was aggressive and happened to get lucky isn’t a good argument, in my opinion.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Would it be better if the intangible in question was leadership?
If Lee knows the team is pressing and needs a win, therefore he busts it from 1st to 3rd to beat a throw, showing emotion and leading the team. Then his leadership manifested itself in the baserunning statistic, if that makes sense.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
I think that's reaching for an intangible argument there...
and again, that can still probably be measured with stats (i.e., how often a player makes a particular baserunning decision in a certain circumstance).
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I agree on the baserunning measurements.
I just wonder how much Lee (or another runner) is motivated by that “leadership intangible.”
Does Lee make that baserunning decision because his leadership on the Cubs is inherent? Does Aaron Miles not make that decision to run because he’s not a leader on the team and doesn’t feel the need to make a tough play (and because he’s short and has small strides)?
I’m just curious how much it would vary from one player to the next.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Unless the leadership shows up in non-tangible ways...
it’s not really an intangible. The baserunning decision could be an example of leadership, but it’s definitely measurable with stats.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Got it.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
"that can still probably be measured with stats"
I agree and I think this is exactly what highly talented scouts do. They do all these computations (recollect their thoughts from what they have seen in similar situations before) in their minds. We call this scouting.
Great in-game managers are those who can do the above in the very little time that is available during a ball game.
cubsnlinux - June 16, 2009
I have spotted Lou in the dugout several times this year...
… looking through a binder, which presumably contains statistical breakdowns. He made a point on several postgame press conferences this past weekend noting that Joe Mauer was hitting over .400 vs. both LHP and RHP, which is (apparently) why he didn’t bring in a lefty to pitch to him at one point where you would have thought it would be obvious.
But this doesn’t mean Lou is a stat-oriented manager. In fact, I think he’s quite the opposite.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Really?
Do u have any stats to back that up?
McRipper - June 16, 2009
Are we sure those are stats
and not a binder of jokes and stories for Lou to read.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Well, no, we don't.
Maybe it’s the collection of compromising photos of Jim Hendry.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Chad Fox must have left it behind
after his last injury.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
I think he meant for Aaron Miles to get it, but Lou must have intercepted it.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Which begs the question, why does Miles still start?
Did he get Howry’s notebook of photos as backup?
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
It appears so.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Based on Miles appearances in the lineup
He might have his own book on Lou
nji232 - June 16, 2009
If Lou is not stat-oriented.....
why did he insist on getting more left-handed hitters this year?
Clutche - June 16, 2009
Purely stat-oriented implies to me that
one pays more attention to individual pitcher-batter matchups, or their performance against RH/LH, than just the “opposite handed” stuff.
If Lou IS stat oriented, why didn’t he realize Cotts couldn’t get LH hitters out?
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
An even better question...........
is why didn’t he realize Cott just sucked, period?
Clutche - June 16, 2009
Cotts
How can you say Cotts sucks? He was on a world series team! He has the heart of a winner!
Old Style & Ivy - June 16, 2009
He had his Howry glasses on?
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Not that it's germaine to the discussion
But I’m pretty sure he’d have been safe, anyway.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
It was really close...
but I believe the ump called him safe before he saw the ball dropped.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
That's how it looked to me, too.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Yes, I thought so, as well.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Actually, I thought he'd have been out if Tolbert hadn't dropped the ball.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
I thought he made it from my angle
The replays made me think so, too. It was very close.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Yes, it was.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
actually he looked safe to me, the ball falling only made Soto go for another base.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
Show me the stat that shows
a player going an extra base on a play he should not have, in the bottom of the ninth, tie score, with the team struggling, where the ball goes flying out allowing the hitter to take 2nd …and I’ll look it up.
The intangible I was referring to was hustle. And the play from DLee sparked the team. I don’t think you’ll find that play on a stat sheet.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
All of those things can be measured quantitatively...
with the exception of the “on a play he should not have.” And that part, I would argue, would NOT be a good thing in a player. Hustle is only a good quality if it is in the best interest of the team. It’s not good to hustle into likely outs – on average, that’s going to hurt the team.
Of course, Lee was safe either way, making it the right decision. And that type of baserunning decision can certainly be measured with stats (even down to the level of detail that you described). Just because those stats aren’t readily available to you doesn’t mean they can’t be measured.
As I said, hustle/leadership are only intangibles if they can’t be measured. In this baserunning example, they can be measured.
I’m not saying intangibles don’t exist. I’m just saying this isn’t one of those examples.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I was following with you just fine, until...
“Lee was safe either way, making it the right decision.”
I guess you lost me there. A bad baserunning decision leading to safely taking an extra base is still a bad decision. Bad because of the game timing and risk versus reward. Because a good decision can still lead to an out, I’m not sure this example is measured the way you’re implying.
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
He was safe either way...
as in whether or not the 3B dropped the ball. Had he been expected to be out if the 3B hadn’t dropped the ball, that’d be a bad decision. But he beat the throw according to the ump.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Anything can be measured if given the detail I alluded to..
How about the spark that play gave the Cubs? Theriot even referred to it after the game. Can a stat that showed DLee play show the effect it would have on another player?
I disagree, this play is the intangible that doesn’t show up on the stat sheet. I know you aren’t arguing the neglect able affects on intangibles, but if you do have a link where that play then please reference it. You are arguing theory, I am talking about real world.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
What stat sheet?
The one in the newspapers? That’s useless. I’m arguing that somebody has detailed metrics on baserunning decisions in various settings. You and I just don’t have access to it.
I’m also willing to argue the theoretical (that it can be measured).
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I just don't see
any team having the detailed stat sheet representing the DLee going to third in that situation and the positive impact it had on that game. I will grant you that ball clubs have much more info than anything we can find on baseball reference. Maybe Al or someone close to any club can answer the question whether they have such detailed metrics that would encompass all the variables involved in the Dlee play.
My view is that he took a chance, it paid off, it gave the team a lift, and we won. I don’t think Dlee thought about a percentage thing when he rounded second and decided to go to third.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
that's not the point.
the point is, you CAN quantify the results from when Lee has been in that position.
That’s all statistics do.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
First, you have no idea what team's have in terms of stats...
but second, it’s absolutely quantifiable.
Also, who cares what Lee was thinking? That’s irrelevant to the discussion. The outcome (and the ability to measure it) is what we’re debating. And in this case, it’s measurable and thus not an intangible.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I'll add that I also have no idea what teams have in stats...
but that’s not the point. The second paragraph was more the point.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I think I stated about my knowledge about a team's stat sheets.
What I said was that I would be surprised if they had the detail that would encompass that play.
The intangible thing I’m referring to is that it was a gutsy play and it gave Riot a lift when he came to the plate. My view, an intangible.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
You are wrong, and it's because of something you missed in fifth grade.
It seems to me that many of you don’t understand a very simple distinction: the difference between cause and effect.
Statistics measure effect, nothing more. Lee hustled and the effect was that he was safe. This is a measurable thing – he was safe, the cause was irrelevant.
Maybe a player hustling sparks a rally, causing the Cubs to score runs and win the game. The effect – the runs – is a measurable thing.
What you’re not getting is that the cause of that rally – be it hustle, leadership, grit, good diet, sick children, bad attitudes, clubhouse compatibility, encouraging greeting cards received, butterfly wings, astrological alignment, whatever – the cause is not only fuzzy, nebulous, and impossible to measure or pin down what exactly it was – it’s irrelevant. We care about the effect – the outcome of the game.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
Obviously we care about the effect-outcome of the game.
But how the players respond to factors during the games is what some of us are referring to. They are human beings(not robots) and they respond to other factors that motivate them.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that DLee inspired play helped give Riot a lift there. He referred to it in a post game interview. You can measure the effect of Riot basehit winning the game, but DLee gave him the emotional lift coming to the plate.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
But you can’t account for and predict for these things, so what good are they when comparing players? You say it gave Theriot a lift but who knows? What if it’s because the batboy said the right thing to Theriot on his way to the plate? We’ll never know all the causes behind these things, they’re really not germane to a discussion of player value, which is what started this whole fuss in the first place.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
What started this was a discussion about the DLee play
being an intangible or not. But I give you this:
I don’t think he mentioned anything the batboy said.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
Productive outs
Where is the stat that shows making productive outs? Right now this team is not making productive outs.
I think that is a important piece to a good team, but very hard to measure.
Cubsfan Waveland - June 16, 2009
Baseballreference does measure productive outs.
man on third with less than 2 outs
man on 2nd no outs
I don’t have the time to take a look at where the Cubs are compared to other teams, but just watching the games it seems like they are bad in these categories.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
IMO...
…they are both important. The real issue is, the skill of the person or organization in interpreting and their philosophy.
Good information is only useful if you know how to use it.
MPH73 - June 16, 2009
We didn't need any statistics or scouting reports
to predict that replacing Mark DeRosa with Aaron Miles was not going to work very well.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
umm..actually we do :-)
cubsnlinux - June 16, 2009
No that was obvious from the second that move was made
nji232 - June 16, 2009
I'm not sure I agree with your statement.
If all other positions stayed healthy, the combination of Fontenot and Miles appeared adequate to replace DeRosa at second.
The concern immediately was DeRosa’s ability to back up almost every position.
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
Agreed
DeRosa’s value was in his versatility, allowing us to carry 9 good offensive players and still give various players adequate rest (and provide injury insurance for Soriano, Lee, and Ramirez). Theoretically, Fontenot and Miles platooning should have been able to offset the loss of DeRosa’s contributions offensively at 2B (with Fontenot outproducing him against RHP but Miles weighing the platoon down).
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
You replace baseball's best insurance policy
with a much lesser player. That was a downgrade the second it happened. Aramis injury or not. The Aramis injury just made it much more obvious that it would have been.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
more obvious than it would have been
not that.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
If they had replaced him with say Ty Wigginton, then I would understood the move.
Wigginton is utility guy, who can play the corners on the infield and outfield, and play some second base…. all while driving in about 50 runs a year for you as a part-time player.
But, they replaced him with Miles… who isn’t going to adequately fill-in at any corner position… and isn’t going to drive in more than 30 runs as a starter.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
Agreed...
Trading DeRosa wasn’t a problem IF they had acquired a DeRosa-like player (i.e., versatile and productive) in his place. They didn’t do that, and it exposed the team to greater risk.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Exactly. The assumption was after trading DeRosa the team
needed someone capable of backing up 3B. Hoffpauir arguably could back up RF, LF & 3B, but a backup for third was skipped.
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
And they were so focused on finding a platoon partner at 2B
That, they chose Miles… even though we apparently had an overflow of second basemen in our system (Scales, Blanco). Meanwhile, Wigginton could’ve been starting at 3B this whole time, and platooned at 2B with Fontenot to begin the year.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
I think the Miles acquisition...
was an overreaction to his high 2008 batting average and a misconception that he could also be a utility guy. I think both thoughts were misguided.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Plus, he's scrappy!
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
The Cubs have more than enough of the scrap intangible at this point.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Indeed.
One could even say that they have a heap of it.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
or a pile.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Yep
LaRussa used him all over the place because he had very few options. He is actually only able to play second and a bit of short.
What really bothers me is Hendry getting suckered into somebody’s batting average without looking at more advanced numbers.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
I didn't even realize
Wiggington could play second. Makes it all even stranger.
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
Yep
Wigginton
91 starts at 1B
122 starts at 2B
547 starts at 3B
49 starts in OF
SackMan - June 16, 2009
Yeah, but you forget
He’s right handed. This one isn’t even in jest; that likely was part of it.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
LOL. Another premise that fouled up our roster
The need to be more left handed. That was their scapegoat for the playoffs. Now, the scapegoat is Gerald Perry.
SackMan - June 16, 2009
Perry got shafted; no question
I think even Hendry knows that. But he’s not going to fire himself.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Exactly...
can’t fire the players, can’t fire the manager that you just gave an extension to, and he’s not going to fire himself.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I agree with this
The way this team was constructed we need a versitle guy to cover for some of the injury prone guys.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Gee, ya think we could have used Casey McGehee this year?
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
sure
but based on last year, there was no way to know he was going to perform this way.
Hindsight is 20-20, and people have been using it A LOT this year…
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
well nobody could have guessed that we would need him
He can only play third, so it would have been hard to justify keeping him.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
except for the fact that 3rd was the one position we had zero depth at
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
I played third in high school, don't worry.
And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express all last month. Put me in, Coach SWL.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
How many teams carry a average hitting
3rd base only backup.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Most of them...
in the minor leagues.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
Maybe I'm wrong
But didn’t McGehee have to be on a major league roster this season?
nji232 - June 16, 2009
See the Fanshot section, everyone.
daver - June 16, 2009
hindsight
is 20-20.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Aaron Miles is a perfect example...
…of why the Chicago Cubs are still lagging behind other teams in their use of advanced statistical analysis. Any sabermagician worth his salt could’ve sat Jim Hendry down and showed him a number of credible projections showing that the Cubs probably weren’t going to get anything more from Miles than they could get from any number of league-average replacements – Bobby Scales being the obvious example. This could’ve saved the Cubs a lot of money and us a lot of aggravation. Batting average be damned!
daver - June 16, 2009
Dave, you should post that on Bruce Miles' blog
Seriously
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Thanks!
Perhaps I shall – I’ve been terrible about keeping up with Bruce’s blog. He really needs to get on Twitter.
daver - June 16, 2009
If we rec this enough
Perhaps the green will shine into the office of Jim Hendry.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Did my part
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
and we're at 3.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Done and done.
Shine on, beautiful post. Shine on.
AndrewJStone - June 16, 2009
Thanks, all.
A green day is a good day.
daver - June 16, 2009
Agreed
The overpaying for mediocre/poor veteran middle infielders has been a staple for Hendry.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
except that
Mark DeRosa’s replacement is Fontenot, not Miles.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Depends on what you mean by replacement...
Miles is the replacement for DeRosa as the utility player and infield insurance policy. Fontenot is the replacement as the everyday 2B. The value of DeRosa is less as a 2B than as a utility guy and insurance policy for Soriano, Lee, and Ramirez. Fontenot is not that guy.
I think the gameplan going into the season was to get around 100 games each with Miles and Fontenot, with Fontenot playing primarily at 2B and Miles filling in at 2B, SS, and 3B as needed to rest the regulars and platoon with Fontenot. So in that sense, Miles is the replacement for DeRosa.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
alright.
and in that, Hendry was mistaken.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
I agree
Now, had Hendry gotten a guy like Wigginton to replace DeRosa, that’d be a different story.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I think the answer to this is..
The ups and the downs of a long season, turns and twists, joy and sorrow, grit and perseverance and in all the game of baseball came before all these stats are invented/discovered.
As time progressed and as technology advanced the number of stats that quantify the previously thought intangibles have increased and as a result subjective analysis is giving way to objectivity in a number of areas.
A wide array of manufacturing processes have been automated and in them robots actually do a better job than humans but can we replace a human being completely? I guess no. Similarly analyzing a ball game is both an art and a science. Statistics address the scientific aspects of the game and experience/scouting/feel for the game etc address the artistic aspect.
Some old school scouts never appreciate statistics because they don’t realize that a number of so called intangibles are now tangibles because with new tools/processes/procedures those aspects can now be measured. Similarly people who believe stats are everything think that this is kind of like the chicken and egg analogy. In reality this analogy doesn’t apply because the game came first and then came all the stats.
cubsnlinux - June 16, 2009
Lots of "intangibles" becoming tangible...
well said.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I agree with your approach Al but...
If someone legitimatley believes that the argument they are making applies to the subject at hand, and we are on a BLOG, then why arent the people of either side of the argument “allowed” to state their side of the argument.
Some people think the stats say it all, and some dont, like myself or you, but why does that discredit their argument, and why do they have to reformulate their point on a BLOG.
SouthsideCUBSfan - June 16, 2009
No one's argument is discredited...
… nor are they not “allowed” to make it. Make any argument you want, but:
That’s all I ask.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Makes much sense
I frequent many blogs, and you definitely have the most control over this blog, and thats a great thing.. It is probably what makes this the most visited SBNation site.. nothing gets too out of control…
There are other sites (secondcityhockey, blogabull) that the site moderator swears and uses profane arguments more then the members of the site which only insinuates more out of control content
SouthsideCUBSfan - June 16, 2009
I’m fine with qualitatively backing up or supporting your comment, but it’s blind and unwavering support for comments that are ill-conceived that get tiresome on this blog. Statistics are clear-cut evidence that shut the door on these ill-conceived notions.
“Why don’t we trade for XYZ?” Well, no, we can’t trade for XYZ, and we shouldn’t want to, because he’s worse defensively and has minimal production value over ABC.
“Why can’t we move Hoffpauir to the OF regularly and Soriano to 2B?” Err, because Soriano’s played nearly 800 games at 2B and is piss-poor at fielding that position, and because for as bad Soriano is at 2B defensively, Hoffpauir is worse at LF?
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
Sure, but
What if Hoffpauir just knows how to win?! Then what?!
Old Style & Ivy - June 16, 2009
We ride Sir Micah's coattails?
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
I would never suggest it as a regular soloution...
… but why not try it on occasion till Rami is back? Anything to get Miles out of the lineup.
I’ve stated this already, but i’d rather lose because we tried something new and it didn’t work out than because we stood pat with what we knew wasn’t working. With our solid starting pitching limiting runs thus far, its an easy solution to get some more power in the lineup. The Miles to Sori at 2B dropoff can’t be so big as to outweigh the tradeoff of Hoff batting vs Miles.
I know, stats say this, stats say that. This team has been losing because of lack of offense, not because of bad defense. Why not try it? If its abysmal, move on.
AndrewJStone - June 16, 2009
It makes me laugh so hard I cry just thinking about it...
…this team has SIX second basemen! SIX!!
Miles
Scales
Theriot
Fontenot
Blanco
Freel
Granted, Theriot has yet to play a game at 2B this year, but it is pathetic at how many 2B we have, and yet all of them suck.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
I would give Blanco the benefit of being a SS
I think that is his natural position, though I would be wrong.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Agreed, which is amusing...
we play a natural SS at 2B, and a guy who is better-suited defensively for 2B at SS.
Note: this is not intended in any way to bash Theriot, who has been pretty productive last year and this year. But with his arm, he would be better suited playing 2B. When the alternatives were Miles and Fontenot (or Cedeno and Fontenot), it was a fair argument to say he was the best choice. But if we’re playing one no-hit guy in the middle infield anyway, we should at least do so with the best allotment of defensive players at 2B and SS (which would be Blanco at SS and Theriot at 2B).
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
His UZR @ 2B is off the charts, too. I say we forget about a friggin’ 2B and try to move for a SS, moving Riot to 2B, and get rid of most of those rubbish players. I don’t have any SS off the top oof my head, though, before you ask.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
I'm all for this
If the chance to get an impact SS comes up, I would hope Hendry does his best to make that deal.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
They still think Theriot's a shortstop, though....
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
This is the same front office
that signed Aaron Miles. I keep forgetting that they don’t use their brain all the time.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
I wonder if a better alternative presented itself if they would
Remember, Theriot became the shortstop because he was competing with Cesar Iztruis, who couldn’t hit enough to hold the job (could be why Blanco isn’t playing there now).
If a shortstop who could hit and field came along, I wonder if Lou would be so enamored with Theriot at short.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Riot's actually a pretty good short stop, which, ya know, with the double-clutching n all, surprises the hell outta me.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
But just for the sake of argument
Let’s say the Mets got tired of Jose Reyes. I’m not an advocate of trading Harden, necessarily, but I’d trade Jake Fox and Rich Harden for Reyes and a low-A prospect.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Jose Reyes reminds me of a flash-in-the-pan celebrity.
He’s good, don’t get me wrong, but if he wasn’t (1) playing in New York and (2) all hyper and crazy and did fist bumps and wore eleven thousand necklaces…how valued would he really be?
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
I think some of the luster is gone...
part of it was that he is amazingly fast. He’s had double-digit HR and 3B in each of the past three years, with at least 15 triples in the last four years. And of course he’s a high volume (though not terrible high-percentage) base-stealer.
Another part of it was that he emerged as a star really young, with a 115 OPS+, blazing speed and flashy defense at just 23. The thought was that the sky was the limit for the kid. He was developing power and plate discipline to go along with the blazing speed and premium defensive position. He was going to become Rickey Henderson at shortstop.
The problem is that he sort of plateaued. The walks, power, and average all stopped climbing. So now he’s just a really good player at 26, and not the uberstar it appeared he’d become.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Possibly right for both of you
I’d still take a chance on the raw talent, though. He’s shown an ability to harness some of it.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
I think he's worked his tail off and it shows
The difference in Theriot’s defense from two years is apparent, and he’s definitely improved.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
SS are harder to find...
which is why Theriot has played SS for the Cubs. It’s much easier/cheaper to find guys to play 2B.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Well I think we've collected all the crappy second basemen in baseball.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
Eckstein is still out there...
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
As are Anderson Hernandez & Ron Belliard.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
Five of those guys (not Riot) have played at least one game @ 2B this year.
Pathetic, isn’t it.
BRIAN ROBERTS WE NEED YOU
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
another 2nd baseman?
cubsnlinux - June 16, 2009
What stats support........
the statement that Hoff is worse defensively in LF than Sori is at 2nd base? And, is Miles better at 2nd than Sori?
Clutche - June 16, 2009
The key is the combination...
Soriano is, according to UZR, a positive value in LF and a negative value at 2B. Miles is probably close to a wash at 2B defensively. Hoffpauir is likely a wash defensively in LF.
So you’d be replacing a plus LF and wash 2B with a wash LF and a bad 2B. The aggregate defensive quality would go down. The question is whether or not the offensive upgrade would sufficiently offset the defensive downgrade. I’m not sure that it would, especially given that Hoffpauir’s bat hasn’t looked as lustrous this season.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
makes sense, thanks
Clutche - June 16, 2009
All I know is
Miles better not start tonight.
Itchy - June 16, 2009
Miles would be on a bus home tonight, if I were in charge.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
na, I would keep him on the team
So he could hand the players cubs of gatorade or water when they come in from the field.. Perfect water/towel/laundry boy
SouthsideCUBSfan - June 16, 2009
I honestly wouldnt trust him with that job
He would probably drop it, or get the wrong thing for each player.
jkobus - June 16, 2009
And someone might smash him if they got upset.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Zambrano punch in the face?
If it puts him on the DL, then I guess it may suit him well.
jkobus - June 16, 2009
Do you think Hendry would ever outright release him or DFA him?
Itchy - June 16, 2009
I'd be shocked if he did with a full year remaining on that contract
Maybe pleasantly surprised is better :)
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Hendry won't admit he messed up
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Is that just a Hendry thing?
Or are a majority of GMs that stubborn that they cant admit a mistake?
jkobus - June 16, 2009
Its a human nature and ego thing
I don’t always like to admit that I’m wrong, and I think a lot of people are like that. Especially somebody in such a public position like Hendry.
Still, DFA Miles. He will sign with St Louis as fast as possible and we weaken a rival while making our team better. Win, win, win.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
I dont know
I guess I may be different, but when I make a mistake I like to look at what I did, fix it, and learn from it. But there is no way this team can still think Miles is useful, therefor they need to fix it. St Louis sounds good to me :) Let them deal with his poor play
jkobus - June 16, 2009
Didn't take long for Hendry to get rid of Gaudin & Vizcaino...
… both of whom are getting part of their deals paid for by the Cubs.
They also dumped Gathright quickly.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
I think the difference is that
Miles is often associated with the loss of DeRosa, at least in my mind. I don’t know about anybody else.
If Hendry dumps Miles he kind of admits a screw up with DeRosa, at least IMO.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Maybe, unless....
… it corresponds with bringing DeRo back.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
True
Forgot about those three. Dont fully agree on the dropping of Vizcaino though.
jkobus - June 16, 2009
I don't really have much to add on this topic. To me it is common sense to use qualitative and quantaitative analysis.
Opinions are useless without facts to back them up, and numbers are useless without contextual meaning behind them. It boggles my mind how this is just a “new idea” in baseball.
That said, the other day we were discussing the merits of playing Soriano @ 2B. I found out that Soriano has an ultimate zone rating of over 18 points HIGHER in the OF than at 2B. To me that’s a no brainer, Soriano does not start at 2B, he flat out sucks at it. But competitively, maybe Hoffpauir is hot at the plate and needs to play. Where you gonna put him? Yould could throw him in LF and move Soriano to 2B. Now, in a vacuum, Soriano produces much better (defensively) @ OF than 2B, but how does that dynamic work with Hoffpauir in the mix? We don’t know as much about this. Granted, Hoffpauir sucks at defense, but that’s another topic.
Dan
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
making that move
Like you said, would only hinder us defensively which, defensive blunders can add up throughout the season, but at the rate that we are scoring runs… something needs to be done, and this clearly would help our offense.. I would rather have Fox if we arent going to worry about defense though
SouthsideCUBSfan - June 16, 2009
At this point, I'm all for PEDs.
Our offense is bleeding strikeouts, RISPs, and softly hit grounders.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
I'd say you could reasonably approximate that
You have the defensive ratings for Soriano at both positions, you have information (with perhaps a statistically insignificant sample size, but we can fake it) for Hoff in LF, and you have whatever offensive numbers you plan on using (career, season, or in a given month if you’re relying on a “hot streak”).
Throw in the 2B that Soriano is replacing, add up the runs gained and lost, and you have your projection.
redward - June 16, 2009
Oh, I'm on your side in this discussion, 100%.
A scenario like that is a no brainer to me, like I said. The only dynamic I’m interested in is to see if Micah’s bat (which has been pretty terrible lately), can help this anemic offense while still making up for some of the defensive woes.
Frankly, I don’t think there’s enough quantitative analysis on this board. This isn’t the only profession (No Child Left Behind, anybody?) or professional sports where statistics and quantitative assessments are becoming commonplace. Look at someone like Daryl Morey, the GM of the Houston Rockets. He’s adopting a mathematical approach to basketball (look here and here if you haven’t heard of him) and has seen quite a bit of success thus far. Stats has helped to go a long way in explaining why they value Shane Battier, for instance, although his traditional metrics look like crap.
Two things have heightened my favoring of quantitative analysis: It’s tiring to read statements like “He’s seeing the ball better” or ""He’ll come around" without anymore analysis than watching the game on TV. I’m not meaning to devalue an observation, field notes, or the scout’s role in player development, but it can take very little knowledge of the game of baseball to say these things. Conversely, looking up AVG/OBP/SLG takes minimal knowledge, too! However, (and my second point), my schooling has helped me understand that I can use statistics to further enhance and complement my observable data of field notes, interviews, evaluation or assessments, etc. It’s more than enough for me to use the latter when it’s a clear-cut decision (at least in my mind), but the fact that we have both in our toolbox is our best measure.
Dan
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
Agreed...
part of the problem has been that baseball has been run (at the managerial and GM level) largely by former players. And those former players tended to be WAY undereducated relative to the folks who typically run organizations. It’s only more recently that educated “stat-geek” folks have even broken into the profession.
I agree that there’s a place for both qualitative and quantitative analysis in the game. Quantitative analysis can supplement/correct qualitative analysis, AND vice versa. It’s just that the quantitative has been so underutilized (or misutilized) for so long that it has been a tooth-and-nail fight to get its place.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
As more teams succeed with a proper quantitative/qualitative balance, I think it gains acceptance
When teams like Boston or Tampa Bay succeed by relying on quantitative principles while utilizing qualitative analysis as well, I think more teams look at statistical analysis as a key component.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
What stats back up the notion that Hoff sucks defensively.........
not a gold glove for sure, but sucks?
Clutche - June 16, 2009
Do you think?
If you take away the 2nd baseman (the fact I cant figure out who would be considered the everyday 2nd baseman is pretty sad) and put Soriano there and Hoff in left, does the offensive upgrade trump the defensive downgrade? Do the defensive mishaps that are bound to happen with that move add up enough through the year that it loses us more games then we would have if we kept it the way it is?
I think personally, the offensive upgrade is worth a shot for exactly what you are saying. We don’t have much of a sample size, so we dont know EXACTLY how Hoff can be in left.. I say we give it a shot
SouthsideCUBSfan - June 16, 2009
I say we don't.
Are you sure putting Hoffpauir in the lineup would be an offensive upgrade? I mean, Micah’s had his moments this season, but he’s managed only a .741 OPS through 120 PAs thus far. It’s not like we’re talking about Adam Dunn here.
daver - June 16, 2009
Agreed...
it was one thing when Hoffpauir was OPSing .900+. But he’s quietly faded back to mediocrity as a hitter this season. It’s hard to see him necessarily providing enough with the bat to offset the downgrade defensively – even compared with Aaron Miles at 2B.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
this.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Personally
I would rather have Fox out there, or even Reed Johnson
SouthsideCUBSfan - June 16, 2009
I'd like to see what Fox could do with some regular major league ABs, too.
But probably not at the cost of moving Soriano to second. Now if Alfonso doesn’t start showing something at the plate, I might suggest DLing him for a couple weeks and putting Fox in LF.
daver - June 16, 2009
Serious question.........
does the ultimate zone rating include singles Sori turns into doubles by taking the circuitous route to field a ball, or the fly ball he doesn’t catch up with taking the same route?
Clutche - June 16, 2009
Uhhhhh, I would assume so?
I know THT had him rated as the best LF arm last year.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
I'm pretty sure his arm
is what makes up for those circle routes he takes towards some balls in the ratings.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
no doubt he has a cannon..........
but if you don’t catch it first a strong arm is wasted
Clutche - June 16, 2009
untrue.
Sori had tons of assists last year, and a big reason why he’s had fewer this year is because people have learned to not run on him. I’d say he holds plenty of runners at first simply because of fear of his arm.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
From the best baseball writer in the biz...
Come’s this lil fun STATISTIC…beware, qualitative people.
From here, Joe Posnanski’s blog.
Dan
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
Z power
Z also has more career homers than Miles and Juan Pierre. Probably a good number of other players too.
nji232 - June 16, 2009
Simple conclusion maybe, one is younger and one is done?
Both swing as hard as they can.
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
I don't know why I wrote "Come's".
I’m an idiot.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
Off the topic...
…..whatever happened to the talk of using Fox as DH in interleague games?
Wasn’t the talk from Lou all about doing just that? Has this idea already died?
The Jade Scorpion - June 16, 2009
It hasn't been an issue yet...
we don’t need a DH for another week.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I think it still could happen.
The Tigers have exactly one LH starter — Dontrelle Willis. It’d be fun to see Fox hit off Willis, if he’s even still on the team after all the walks he’s given up recently.
The White Sox have two LH starters — John Danks and Mark Buehrle (and Clayton Richard if they use him that way). Fox could hit a ton in the Cell — it’s a launching pad.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
I agree
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Rome on Bradley
I just heard Jim Rome lambasting Gameboard for this 2-out flip into the stands and more importantly, for his “That’s life”, “Sue me” response.
The Gameboard era is unraveling. He may just need a fresh start…again. Sad.
NashvilleBlue - June 16, 2009
Is Rome considered relevant?
I’m not trying to be funny or mock your viewing/listening interests; just wondering if he’s considered to be much more than a sports “shock jock”.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
That's exactly what he's considered...
along with almost all other talk show personalities (like Colin Cowherd, Steven A. Smith, etc). He just takes aggressive stances on everything to generate conversation.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
seems like a talk show
host should generate conversation.
NashvilleBlue - June 16, 2009
Agreed - but that doesn't make him relevant...
Talk show hosts are supposed to stir up controversy with crazy statements. That’s how they make their living by saying irrational things to stir the pot.
So the point is that what Rome says should be taken with a grain of salt.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
I guess that's what I was getting at with my question
And it was my assumption, but I never watch/listen to him. “Rome Is Burning” just screams, “egomaniac”.
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
I hate listening to Jim Rome
He embodies what there is to hate about ESPN. Biased journalism with not much of a point behind what they spew.
jkobus - June 16, 2009
The "Chris" Everett taunt is pretty funny though
YouTube.
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
That was phenomanal
Thank you.
jkobus - June 16, 2009
Was that staged?
NashvilleBlue - June 16, 2009
He looked generally pissed to me
jkobus - June 16, 2009
You'd never seen it before?
It’s the stuff [Internet] legends are made of. It wasn’t staged and there’s plenty of documentation you can find on their feud.
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
I think he is dead on in this case...
fans are starting to boo…taunt. How do you think Milton will respond to all of this?
I agree with Al, we have already seen little glimpses of Gameboard’s attitude that I think we were all worried about and new was part of the gamble with him.
NashvilleBlue - June 16, 2009
Nothing is unraveling...
it’s just Milton being Milton, that’s all.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
just a matter of time...
before he tears his ACL fighting with Zambrano over who gets to whack the Gatorade dispenser next.
NashvilleBlue - June 16, 2009
The dispenser is gone.
The Gatorade is back in coolers and there are plenty of those for them to each have their own cooler. :P
sue369 - June 16, 2009
Milton Bradley handled that situation completely opposite of how I thought it should be handled.
Rather than go on the defensive and blame life, he should have sucked up, said he was sorry, apologized, and moved on.
dtpollitt - June 16, 2009
Agree completly.
And what was the comment about having they have “high expectations”? Are we expecting too much to ask that he be aware of the situation and remember the number of outs?
NashvilleBlue - June 16, 2009
It's funny how hard it is to say
“I screwed up and am sorry” when you’re a legend in your own mind.
JFCubFan - June 16, 2009
I hardly think
that Rome is the deliminator of “eras” in Cubs baseball… o.0
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Interesting read, Al.
A number of people have covered some of the points I would make in response, so I don’t need to repeat them.
But just as a general response (not necessarily directed at you, btw), is that part of the problem is that people misunderstand what the “statistical” side of the equation is actually arguing. The erroneous view says that statisticians make claims on what will happen.
People who utilize statistics properly are not making predictions, in so far as they are stating “this is what’s going to happen.” Statistical modeling merely suggests what the most likely outcomes are if you were to continually run a given scenario over and over again. This doesn’t mean that the less likely outcomes won’t happen; merely that the odds suggest a given result is more likely to occur. This means that even the most unlikely outcomes (say, Aaron Miles hitting the cycle every game for the rest of the season) are theoretically possible. In other words, it’s a difference between probability and certainty. The great thing about baseball is that the number of variables (including for example, the health and mental state of an athlete) preclude any notion of predictive certainty…which is why the game is interesting. But statistics allow us to reduce by small degrees the level of uncertainty by using the evidence that we can discern.
Can we say with certainty that player X is and always will be better than player Y in all situations? Well, no. But we can argue that player X has been better than player Y in all past situations, based on a given metric. And we can say that probability suggests that player X will likely produce better results than player Y in a given situation. Those are subtlely different than making a blanket statement of superiority; but it’s a significant difference nonetheless.
As Bill James and others have written, the point of statistics is not to replace the historical way that we measure athletes. New statistics are just additional tools to help us try to capture a more complete picture; they are grounded in the notion that we can rationally approach the way in which we think about the game. What I find most interesting about statistics is that advocates are not monolithic in their approach. There is much disagreement among statisticians on what statistics are actually useful (for example, on whether the Ultimate Zone Rating really does objectively articulate players defensive skill, etc.). What that means is that we’ll continue to have the joy of arguing over which players really are superior for the foreseeable future; we just have more tools with which to argue.
CubsWin!Oregon - June 16, 2009
100% agree...
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Rec'd
cubsnlinux - June 16, 2009
green
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
While I agree with what you are saying...
… often, people making a statistical argument frame it in such a way that it appears they are saying things “WILL” happen that way because of past patterns. Obviously, that’s not right, and they probably don’t mean to say it that way. It does, however, come across that way.
If you asked Bill James, who has been hired by the Red Sox as a statistical consultant, whether his analyses should be used as the only way to evaluate players, he’d likely be the first one to tell you “no”.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
To say "often, people making a statistical argument frame it in such a way..." is an overly broad generalization.
Perhaps you could cite these incidents when they occur or call people out on them but it seems like a generalization of stat based arguments. It’s not particularly credible to refute the use of statistics saying that sometimes people that use stats state their predictions as absolute and then offer no evidence.
Acapulco Taco Pie - June 16, 2009
If they're saying it that way, it's with the implicit understanding that people know what they mean
Forgetting that you’ve trotted out this exact strawman before, let’s pretend that people really do say this kind of thing all the time.
It’s incredibly disingenuous and more than a little hyper-sensitive to get upset about that sort of thing. If I say “Albert Pujols will be better than Aaron Miles this year” it’s obvious what I mean – I’m basing this on their past performance, and that it’s while it’s within the realm of possibility that Aaron Miles may be more valuable this season it’s very unlikely based on their past performance.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
To add to this, using my metaphor above
If I say “Smoking causes cancer” what I mean is that, based on past data, it’s statistically likely that someone who smokes will get cancer. However, it’s within the realm of possibility that a smoker may not get cancer – it’s just the less likely outcome.
Likewise, if I say “Milton Bradley is better than Adam Dunn” the it should be equally obvious that what I’m saying is that based on past data, it’s statistically likely that Bradley will be more valuable to a team in the future than Adam Dunn. However, it’s within the realm of possibility that the opposite may happen – as it has this season. It does not change the fact that it was the less likely outcome.
Do you get mad when people say “Smoking causes cancer?” Because it’s the same thing – an assertion of fact, which is in fact a statement of statistical likelihood.
It’s just easier, as an English speaker, to phrase things this way because you just have to assume people know what you mean. People do it all the time.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
Milton Bradley's past statictics of health would suggest that he will not perform better than Adam Dunn.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
and his past statistics too.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
I think they predict he will perform better
but perform less
redward - June 16, 2009
I see...quality not quantity.
I disagree with you.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
My example is based on a previous discussion here
If me mentioning a player you dislike is making it difficult for you to understand my point, I’d suggest you replace the name with someone you do. It couldn’t be any less relevant to what I’m saying.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
I understand your point perfectly...and I tend to agree with you.
However, you must also take into account the likelihood of a player being healthy enough to have the chance to give you the performance you are expecting.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
except
in theory, anyway, Bradley’s medical issues are accounted for BY the statistics. Specifically, the one called “Games played” or perhaps the one called "PA"s.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Again, not that it matters but
…the discussion I was referring to took projected playing time into account. Take “based on past data” to mean whatever you need it to.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
I know that the Bradley/Dunn discussion took into account projected playing time.
Up to this date, would you say that comparison still holds true? I would argue that Dunn would have been far more valuable to the Cubs, based on his performance to date this year, than Bradley has, based on his performance this year.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
You're still missing the point
Let me quote an author I really love to read, myself:
If I smoke all my life and don’t get cancer, it doesn’t mean smoking doesn’t cause cancer, and it doesn’t mean smoking was the right decision at the time.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
That's a good analogy...
and a much simpler way of saying what I said in a long-winded fashion.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
you're making a mistake in logic here...
Dunn HAS been far more valuable this year based on current performances. But you shouldn’t go back and say he would be expected to be more valuable during the offseason based on current performance.
What has happened to this point is one of an infinite number of possible outcomes. So it’s not fair to use the deterministic outcome to retroactively determine a probabilistic evaluation prior to the season.
The only appropriate way to decide which player would be more valuable going into the season is by using the data available at that time.
I haven’t decided whether I agree with the analysis that suggests Bradley was expected to be more valuable than Dunn. But it is definitely inappropriate to use the particular outcome so far this season as evidence regarding that evaluation.
In hindsight, it looks like the Cubs got the less valuable player to this point. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Hendry made the wrong decision at the time.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Now on top of that, consider that in the offseason...
Dunn wanted to play for the Cubs and Bradley wanted to get a big contract so he’d feel “respected”.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
Bradley also wanted to play for the Cubs...
He recruited himself to the Cubs from the get-go.
And everybody wants a big contract to feel respected. I’m not sure why you’d hold that out as a reason to bust Bradley’s chops.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Probably because he hasn't really done enough over the course of his career to warrant the respect he thinks he deserves.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
you have no way of knowing that.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Because anything Bradley does is immediately cast in a negative light
When he eats lunch it’s because he’s selfish. If he washes the car, it’s because he’s a headcase.
Wreckard - June 16, 2009
Um...not really.
But when he does something stupid, like forget how many outs there are and then refuses to say he may have been wrong….that’s selfish.
Or when he calls out baseball officials in the press because he thinks they have a conspiracy against only him….that’s a headcase.
I would guess that his lunch and Car washes are pretty normal.
santoswoodenlegs - June 17, 2009
How *dare* he not beg our forgiveness.
That’s downright uppity of him, wouldn’t you say?
Never mind the fact that he called it a mistake and said he was embarrassed. Not asking the fans – who have done nothing but support him – for forgiveness is just unfathomable.
No, when he does that he’s not a headcase… he’s right.
Wreckard - June 17, 2009
Well said and Rec'd
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
Al, here's the problem...
one of the disagreements yesterday was over Randy Wells and Rich Harden. You suggested that the team trade Harden because the team did well with him on the DL (SP-wise, at least), due in no small part to the emergence of Randy Wells. Wreckard made an argument that Harden >>> Wells, based in part on numbers. But you don’t have to see the numbers to know which of these two is the better pitcher. I’ll bet that every scout on the planet would take Harden over Wells in a heartbeat. So for the sake of that argument, this counter-argument is disingenuous, at best. Just because Wreckard used numbers doesn’t mean that’s the only thing supporting his position. Indeed, it is in the face of this year’s numbers that Wreckard made such an argument.
That trade suggestion you made, Harden for DeRosa and maybe a prospect (MAYBE?!?!), shows how severely you are under-valuing Harden (and also over-valuing DeRosa). That is such a ridiculous proposition that to support it with this post is beyond laughable. And to follow up on this a little more: if the Cubs do have an over-abundance of SP depth, why not trade Sean Marshall? To a non-contending team that has salary restrictions, getting a young player with a few years of inexpensive team control would probably be attractive. And you wouldn’t weaken the rotation a bit, and could replace Marshall’s role in the pen (LOOGY/swingman) much easier than you could replace Harden in the rotation (ace-level pitcher). In almost every sense, the idea of trading Harden as a way to “fix” this club is nonsensical. And to trade him practically straight-up for DeRosa is sheer madness.
I could say more, but I’ll stop there. This team doesn’t need to make a major move. They need a complimentary player or two, need to stop wasting roster spots on the likes of Miles and Patton, they need to get healthy, and they need to start performing at their true talent level. No major moves are necessary, despite what the mediocrity of their performances to date may make you feel.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
I admit that trading Harden would be a bold move...
… and you’re right, perhaps I overstated that particular deal.
I agree that they need a complementary player or two. Mark DeRosa would be the perfect addition to this team. If there were a player out there doing what DeRosa does, NOT named Mark DeRosa, every single person on this site would be clamoring for the Cubs to get him.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
... I'd also agree
that a DeRosa-like player is something the team should add. But DeRosa himself is too good, in a sense. The team doesn’t need someone that’s as highly valued as he is, both in terms of $$$ and the prospects it would take to get him. I’d rather the Cubs try a healthy Ryan Freel for a while, or go after Felipe Lopez, who is rumored to be available. Those guys (esp. Freel, who only represents sunk costs) should be less expensive than DeRosa.
I said this elsewhere yesterday, but if the Cubs make any major move, it’ll be for a closer. Gregg has been good since the opening week, but sliding him into the setup role with a bonafide closer in place (like Colorado’s Street) would give the Cubs an excellent bullpen to back up the best rotation in the NL.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
Closer?
No not at all. Read this post. We need offense not pitching
jkobus - June 16, 2009
No doubt, Gregg has been great...
but how awesome would he be as the setup man? Or, what if he remained the closer and the team used Street as the setup man? Either way, the bullpen wouldn’t be a weakness anymore. I wouldn’t trade for mid-relief arms because they’re too inconsistent. I’d rather have someone that’s proven they can pitch in stressful, high-leverage situations for years, and closers are the best place to find that sort of thing.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
We have a setup man
Marmol, and we have a guy before him in Guzman.
jkobus - June 16, 2009
Um, not awesome?
Gregg has been hit hard this season, and set up guys often have to come in to the game with men on base. That’s not a good combination.
daver - June 16, 2009
... so then don't use him in those particular situations.
Let him be the 8th-inning setup man, and have Guzman take the high-leverage, guys-on-base situations. Or Ascanio, for that matter. Either way, the pen would be great with the addition of another arm that can close out games and Gregg not being awesome as a setup man argues more to my main point, which is that if the team is going to go after a major acquisition it’ll be a closer.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
Just to clarify...
…are you saying that’s what the Cubs should do or that’s what they will do?
daver - June 16, 2009
yes. IF they make a "major" move it should be that and probably will be that.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
so, we'd have what
14 pitchers?
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Where have you gone, Edgar "Ned" Yost...
…our roster turns its lonely eyes to you…
ballhawk - June 16, 2009
Well you'd obviously send some pitchers in return or down to AAA...
and the other good thing about going after Street is you can include the rights to Patton in the deal, freeing him up to go to the minors.
How’s this for a bullpen?
Street, Gregg, Guzman, Marmol, Ascanio, Marshall, and Heilman.
I think that’s pretty good. Add the 5 starters and your roster is at 12. Patton and Waddell go down to Iowa.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
I still want
Marmol to be a fireman.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
... so then don't use him in those particular situations.
Let him be the 8th-inning setup man, and have Guzman take the high-leverage, guys-on-base situations. Or Ascanio, for that matter. Either way, the pen would be great with the addition of another arm that can close out games.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
... and while this team's offense is putrid,
it’s not from a lack of talent. There aren’t many places to upgrade the offense. Maybe CF… SS could be upgraded, but Theriot is fine especially for his salary. 2B just needs a platoon partner for Fontenot and it will be fine. 1B, 3B, LF, and RF are all set, and you’d have to give up way too much to upgrade over Soto at C, even at the levels he’s performed at this season.
This team certainly needs more offense, I just don’t think they need to make a trade to get it.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
Who could that platoon partner be?
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Freel, if there's no deal made...
or maybe Tony Thomas in a Sept. cup o’ Joe. If you make a move for a guy, I like Felipe Lopez, who is rumored to be available. Given all the attention Mark DeRosa has gotten and the degree to which Lopez’s numbers were killed during his years in Washington’s barn of a ballpark, I think he could be had for much less money.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
Also, the reason I suggested trading Harden...
… instead of, as you suggested, Sean Marshall, is because Harden is a free agent after this year; the Cubs are unlikely to sign him and it would provide some salary relief. Marshall, who, you are correct, could be “more” easily replaced in the pen (but if that’s so, why have the Cubs had so much bullpen trouble this year), is under team control for at least two more years at a reasonable rate.
Also, Lou doesn’t use Marshall properly, but that’s a whole different story.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
I see that, but...
the contract of Marshall would also be preferred by whatever team we’re dealing Harden to. Unless we’re dealing them to a big-market contender that thought they could re-sign him, or a team that didn’t mind a one-year rental.
And the Cubs’ bullpen woes have nothing to do with their ability to field a LOOGY. Sure, they may have had poor performances from Cotts earlier this season, but there are a few guys in MiLB that can probably do the job reasonably well. Besides, having a bad bullpen is a much “better” problem to have than having a bad rotation. Not that the rotation would be bad without Harden – it just wouldn’t be the best in the league, anymore.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
I suspect there would be a lot of teams who'd take Harden on a rental...
… especially considering 1/3 of this year is gone, reducing the salary requirement.
The Angels, for one.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
True...
but if I’m the Cubs I’m only trading Harden if I’m giving up on the year and having a fire sale. Otherwise, keep him on the roster and trade your worse starting pitchers – Marshall or Wells.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
The suggestion was to trade Heilman for DeRosa
not Harden.
mykalmorgan - June 16, 2009
At one point in the comments, I did suggest Harden for DeRo.
However, the Heilman (and prospects) for DeRosa would actually make some sense. Heilman has been better lately. The Indians bullpen is horrendous. They’re about to get Grady Sizemore back; they don’t need a bat. They need pitching.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
I would be shocked...........
if they would part with DeRosa, because without him, they become non-contenders.
Clutche - June 16, 2009
Not if they get Harden in return!
:-P
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
Yes, Heilman for DeRo...
makes lot more sense. I probably wouldn’t have even posted were it not for the Harden for DeRosa suggestion. More likely, the Indians would ask for a deal similar to the one they made us for DeRosa – a trio of MLB-ready or nearly MLB-ready bullpen arms. Marmol may have to go, or Gaub and Stevens (the guys we got from Cleveland in the first place).
We also disagree on the need for DeRosa on this club. He’d help fill the Ramirez void for the next few weeks, but after that it would just mean the difference between Fontenot and DeRosa, which in my mind isn’t even worth sending back the arms we got in the original trade (Stevens, Archer, and Gaub). I’d rather have those 3 (Gaub and Stevens in particular, Archer isn’t MLB ready yet) for the stretch run, as I think the bullpen is the biggest roster weakness on the club.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
But even after Aramis gets back...
…the team still needs a backup third baseman. What if Ramirez has a setback? What if he has leg problems? The Cubs could probably still use DeRo regularly while Aramis gets back to full strength. Plus, he could take the heat off Fontenot vs. LHP.
I guess what I’m asking is: How would you address the lack of depth at third base?
daver - June 16, 2009
Have Fontenot play closer to the outfield grass?
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Brilliant!
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
LOL
Well played, my friend.
Allie - June 16, 2009
Freel.
And if not Freel, someone else. You don’t pony up the $$$ and prospects that a guy like DeRosa will get for him to be a backup.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
Yeah, I momentarily overlooked Freel/Farney.
Well, I was initially in favor of the Cubs looking into getting Freel because of his experience at third base. But he’s really played there only sporadically over his career. The most he played was 56 games in 2004. That’s a pretty long time ago.
And I have serious doubts about Freel’s bat. I want to believe that all the great hitters on this team will come around, but I’m really beginning to wonder. DeRo would be a huge boost to the offense – those 21 home runs he hit last year aren’t looking like such an outlier anymore. He’s over halfway there already. For a team like the Cubs, who are trying to break a century-long championship drought, I’m not sure any player should be considered “too good.”
Plus, and I hate to drift into intangibles here, but I do think putting Mark DeRosa back in the dugout would provide a big morale lift to the clubhouse.
That said, and at the risk of waffling, I’m not completely sold on all of the “Deals for DeRo” mentioned. I’m very hesitant to move Harden, even though I do recognize he’s (theoretically at least) a tradeable chip. If Hendry could pull off a Heilman and prospects deal, though, I’d probably sign off.
daver - June 16, 2009
I'm not that down on DeRosa...
I just think he’s more than what the Cubs need. Now, I’m all for filling the roster with All-stars when neglecting costs… but I also am aware that obtaining DeRosa will cost more than, say, Felipe Lopez, a guy that should be able to give the Cubs what they need at a much reduced cost.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - June 16, 2009
Indians
Question on the Indians. Yes, they are 6.5 games out of first behind the Tigers, but have to pass the entire division to reclaim first. Not as though they are in second and just have to pace the leader. While 6.5 games isn’t dead yet, they are still 8 games under .500 and going bad. I always thought dead last nearing 7/1 was just that and games back only really mattered to the second place team. Am I wrong?
Various talking heads have been speculating, I think it was Gammons on the radio this morning, that the Indians are in dead last and expected to be the first team to start a sell off, with Lee being the possible big pitching prize. This didn’t sound like analysis of a team in contention.
Anyone else have thoughts?
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
You don't put band-aids on shotgun wounds
Heilman is a band-aid, and the Indians’ bullpen is definitely a shotgun wound.
I don’t care if Heilman has been better lately – he’s not a proven bullpen solution. The Indians bullpen needs somebody more like good Marmol or a Juan Cruz / Andrew Bailey type – a rubber arm that can come in and throw lights-out for 1-2 innings at a time several days in a row.
For this deal to make sense for the Indians, they’d pretty much have to give up on 2009 (something I don’t think they’re prepared to do yet) and the prospects would have to be pretty darn good. And outside of Vitters and maybe Castillo, I don’t think the Cubs have what the Indians are looking for.
ballhawk - June 16, 2009
Fox recalled per ESPN
china423 - June 16, 2009
Should have never left.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
TWSS
Reddevil - June 16, 2009
Hmmm...
I don’t think that one qualifies
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Agreed
I must’ve been drunk or something… at work.
Reddevil - June 16, 2009
Who's down?
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
From the article
jkobus - June 16, 2009
TWSA
daver - June 16, 2009
That one, however
Shanghai Badger - June 16, 2009
Full story
Here
Waddell put on the DL
jkobus - June 16, 2009
Now THAT makes sense...
Fox can be a pinch hit option from the right side, and Waddell wasn’t being used anyway with Marshall in the bullpen.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
Link fail
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
Sorry
Here
jkobus - June 16, 2009
Are we to trust a blog reporting it before a press release from the team?
Or a “traditional media” outlet?
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
I'll take Bruce Levine's word for it
china423 - June 16, 2009
Would you feel more comfortable is Muskat had told us?
She’s almost never wrong.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
A bit more than "VFTB," yeah, kinda
But I see it’s now widely reported.
chilango2 - June 16, 2009
Sosa linked to steroids
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sports/baseball/17doping.html?hp
chucolo - June 16, 2009
In other news
it’s hotter in summer than in winter.
Reddevil - June 16, 2009
by "anonymous lawyers" who leaked information from "sealed court documents" that cannot be obtained to verify their accusations.
Not that I don’t tend to believe it, but why is this a story?
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
Moreover
Why are these lawyers talking? Isn’t keeping your mouth shut a big part of the job?
redward - June 16, 2009
Because he is now linked to the list of 104 players in 2003.
Everyone suspected but now have a link.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
Right - it's the first semi-official link to steroids for Sammy...
prior to that, he’d just been assumed to be on the juice. If the story is accurate, that’s a direct link.
SouthernCub - June 16, 2009
True.
Why can’t these lawyers reveal all the names on the list? Just pull the band aid off.
Bill Potter - June 16, 2009
semi-official because a NY Times reporter published a story?
Al could have done the same thing here on BCB and had just as much “evidence” to support the accusation.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
And if the Feds go after Clemens then why wouldn't they go after Sosa?
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
more hearsay.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
I was just defending it as a story.
I suspect his use, but I would like to know for sure.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
Probably because Sosa pulled a "Gary Hart" recently and essentially challenged folks to prove he had taken drugs
ballhawk - June 16, 2009
Something tells me he's going to regret that.
daver - June 16, 2009
Did he really? I missed that one.
If he did, that was really stupid.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
well maybe I should have said "indirectly" instead of "essentially"
Last week, or whenever it was, Sosa made some noise about how he expected to be voted into the HoF as soon as he was eligible. He (and many others) shrugged off any PED usage allegations by and large because he had never failed any test, i.e. there was no proof.
ballhawk - June 16, 2009
Oh, the HoF talk. I saw that.
I don’t think that is comparable to the Gary Hart thing. But I think any sports reporter would love to break news of the 104 players regardless of what the players say/challenge.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
Sammy Sosa hit 40 home runs and led the Cubs to the N.L. Championship Series in 2003, the season in which he is said to have tested positive under an anonymous testing program.
If it’s an anonymous testing system, he cannot be linked to the test.
The lawyers who had knowledge of Sosa’s inclusion on the 2003 list did not know the substance for which Sosa tested positive. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified as discussing material that is sealed by a court order.
Release the proof and stand up as a man, or shut the hell up. I won’t believe it till I see the proof.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
Here..I can play that game too....
Albert Pujols hit 49 home runs and led the St. Louis Cardinals to a World Series Championship in 2006, the season in which he is said to have tested positive under an anonymous testing program.
The clown who had knowledge of Pujols’ inclusion on the 2003 list did not know what the hell he was talking about or the substance for which Pujols tested positive. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were dumbasses or possibley didn’t even really know for sure and did not want to be identified as discussing material that is sealed by a court order.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
I believe...
… and I know I’m going to get flamed for this by some, that the 2003 list should be made public. Rather than innuendo and rumor and false accusation, at least we’d know.
It’s been proposed by some that there should be an amnesty given for all past use. There’s some merit to that idea.
Al Yellon - June 16, 2009
Amnesty is a complicated idea.
With a player like Sammy, who is now retired, what does amnesty provide? If he’s proven to have used, amnesty can’t make the HOF voters disregard his usage. He’s announced he’s retiring (very odd timing with the publishing of this article) and can’t be suspended if not playing.
If a current player is on the list, there should be no further punishment, which is effectively what happend with A-Rod.
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
It's particularly egregious that a LAWYER would violate a court order.
I hope they investigate, censure them, and revoke their bar credentials.
I would like to know who the players are, but not by someone blatently breaking the law without fear of consequence. Least of all from someone who took an oath to uphold the law as their profession…
CubsWin!Oregon - June 16, 2009
Seriously..
What did they test for in the 2003 tests? What was the trigger that would put you on the list? I’m sure someone knows that.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
yes....someone does...some nameless lawyer who's word is as good as gold.
santoswoodenlegs - June 16, 2009
Okay I found a breakdown of the poositive tests
As I understand it, there was only one non-steriod positive test.
KaliCub - June 16, 2009
Wow, that article is pretty brutal.
A couple of things on your response. 1. The NYT still has a black eye from the Maureen Dowd issues of the last 60 days. I can’t imagine they would publish something this inflammatory without checking the facts. 2. The article does not state the lawyers are not known to the NYT, but spoke (to NYT) on condition of anonymity.
I understand your position, but believe this is just the start. If not true, Sosa will have to fire back and possibly sue the paper to prove they are wrong and he is not on the 2003 list.
Further, what is the statute of limitations on perjury to congress? If he’s on the list, and was aware he was on the list, his 2005 testimony to congress might hurt more than just being on the list.
N Oakley - June 16, 2009
the NYT will publish whatever they can to sell papers. The print industry is dying.
I don’t even read it anymore, which is why I don’t know what this Dowd thing is, other than the fact that she’s part of the reason why I don’t read the NYT. :P
I don’t know what Sosa will do. All I’m saying is that until his accusers step forth and name themselves, or until the entire report is released, there’s no way to know if they’re telling the truth. I’ll take Sammy at his word.
drewishdrewid - June 16, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.