I think it would actually be a great thing if the Cubs have an awful start to the season, to the point that they become sellers at the trade deadline. The moment is right. The Cubs have an awfully high payroll and clearly this team is not built for the future. The Cubs just can't afford to resign Ramirez, Lee, Lilly, with the money they already owe and the results they are getting, and will get. Trade these players who will be free agents, and clean house. It's time to realize that Hendry doesn't have the talent to produce a good offensive ballclub. 2008 was an outlier (and in the playoff they reverted to the usual Cub type offense). We have enough evidence that Hendry doesn't know how to build an offense. Right? He can build a good enough starting pitching staff for the regular season, but that's about it. He doesn't know what an ace looks like, or the importance to invest in one. It's time to move on and start fresh with a new philosophy. It's the right moment.

How reliable is this fielding statistic? 

I've seen a lof of people here using it, but I find it hard to interpret. I know what it means. The problem is that there is so much fluctuation for many players that I don't know what to make of it. Look for example at Coco Crisp's UZR/150 (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1572&position=OF). In 2007 he has 22.4, in 2008 it's -15.4 and in 2009 you have 19.6. So he has gone from a fantastic fielder, to a horrible fielder, to a fantastic fielder in a 3 year period. That's expectable for offensive numbers, but for defense? I see the same pattern for a lot of players and it's a bit disconcerting. 

How much should I rely on it? How can interpret these types of results?

Kerry Wood - Not doing well

Felix Pie - Not doing well

Mark DeRosa - Not doing well

Michael Wuertz - Lights out

The indians made a bad decision with Wood because he had a limited track record as a closer, is injury prone and even last year wasn't lights out. For similar kind of money they could have gotten Francisco Rodriguez, a guy that has done it for his entire career, and done it better.

Felix Pie is still the same and even Baltimore is limiting his at-bats.

Mark DeRosa has 87 or so OPS+ so far. I think the arms we got back could be valuable and they are doing very good in the minors so far. The problem, I believe, was not trading DeRosa, but rather signing Aaron Miles, and to a ridiculous deal on top of that. I firmly believe Neifi was a more valuable baseball player.

Michael Wuertz? Never understood why they traded him. The guy had been a consistent and good reliever for some years and they basically gave him away for a Tyler Colvin type and an Aaron Miles type. Why?? Wuertz, at career norms, is far more valuable than that, especially making 1 million.

It was strange that they traded Wuertz, but even more troubling for whom they traded him for.

Reading thecubreporter.com I became aware that Bradley had an extremely high BAbip last year, .388 or .65 higher than his career mark. Now, if you assume that his career mark is a good indicator of his "true" BAbip and the added .65 is just luck then his numbers from last year in terms of OPS should have been quite close to his career mark of .827 rather than the 1.000 number he flirted with.

This is the first time I read this... was it discussed here and I just missed it?

Rich Hill has the following line in the Venezuelan league (maybe he was already released, I don't know):

23BB on 21IP tells pretty much the whole story. He also hit a batter with the bases loaded his last appearance as a reliever (he inherited the runners), and then followed that up with a couple of walks. Seems like he is really done.

Felix Pie:

Again, BB pretty much tell the story here too. 2BB in 56AB translates to roughly 20BB in a full season for him. His numbers are pretty bad overall, no power and his average is pretty much all a result of a .356 or so BABIP. Adjust the BABIP to a normal value and his numbers are awful as well (Btw, Jake Fox has an OPS of .939 while playing for the same team). Seeing as Pie is not a big power guy his lack of plate discipline pretty much kills all his value as a hitter (he can't steal bases if he can't get on base). All the evidence in the majors as well as the dominican league suggest Pie will not be a good pro hitter, and I think the Cubs are doing exactly what they should in seeking another outfielder. If they sign a guy who has injury concerns or is bad defensively then Pie can have a role as defensive sub in the outfield.

How reasonable is it to expect a healthy Harden for the playoffs next year?

I mean, the Cubs gave Harden as much rest as you could give a pitcher without putting him on the DL and he still came to the playoffs injured. Given that surgery was at least mentioned this offseason, how optimistic can we realistically be? The one positive I can think of is that 2009 is his contract year and maybe that will boost his performance.

Probably the one place where the Cubs went very wrong this year was regarding the 100 year drought. The strategy the Cubs chose was to try to distance themselves from history or to make it seem as if was irrelevant to the team´s play. I believe that was a sensible mistake. History does weigh down on you. If you had collapses in the past they certainly will influence you in the future, and this even if the collapse was by other players from your organization.

That kind of history does add pressure and what we are seeing now is pretty much a result of it. The Cubs have weaknesses, that is not in doubt, but these are not weakness we are seeing, we are seeing a team that is playing scared and doing things that it had basically not done all year, especially in back to back important games. And perhaps, just perhaps, one contributing factor is trying to minizime or take the importance off something that is definitely huge. Maybe if they acknoweledged that the 100 year drought and the past failures do indeed add pressure to the players and creates a more difficult atmosphere, maybe that way they would have been able to really take some pressure off. The route they chose probably ended up having the exact opposite effect.

Anyway, that´s my opinion and if you don´t like it (I´m sorry to say) I don´t have others :P

I remember watching the baseball ESPN crew in 90's for the wednesday's games and really liking them, especially Gary Thorne. I don't think he's mentioned amongst the great commentators but he was one of my favorites. His calls during HRs (at the wall, Goodbye, Home run!!) were electrifying. I also saw him do NHL games and even though I don't follow hockey I thought he was great there to.

Any other guys who are great but aren't usually mentioned as being of the best?

I'm really wondering if we have the kind of offensive players that can respond under pressure. What the offense is going through right now could just be a collective slump or it could be a sign of cracking under pressure. Given what happened in 2004 and in the 2007 playoffs I think it's a fair question to ask. The history of futility of the Cubs also adds pressure even if it's constantly played down by everybody. The 2003 championship series is a prime example.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist or blow out of proportion something that may just be a slump. But I have to be honest and say that I'm really wondering if these guys are going to be able to respond offensively under pressure. Today Ryan Theriot swong at 3 pitches out of the zone with a man on second and the game on the line. I have no faith whatsoever in Soriano. I don't know what to think about Lee and Ramirez, especially Lee which has not produced as we expected. Soto? Fukudome? Can these guys withstand the pressure to come? I'm really worried that the team will go back to hackalicious mode if the going gets though.

What do you think?

Very interesting article at ESPN.com on what the future for steroid testing might be like: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=3408399

In short, rather than focusing on detecting the steroids per se, the longitudinal testing means establishing a baseline for a person's blood levels / metabolism and then determining steroid use from fluctuations of those baseline levels.

Also important of note is the number of players that have been blood tested numerous times by the World anti doping agency (WADA) and have had their tests come back clean and then later admitted to taking steroids. If that is with blood testing you can pretty much conclude that what is being done in baseball and the other profesional sports is basically a PR move and nothing more.

The government has 103 positive tests (and the corresponding names associated with the samples) from the anonymous testing done in 2003. These are 103 major leaguers, who probably used many different suppliers and different types of steroids. If the final legal ruling is that they can use this info to subponea each of them you may see a can of worms open. Different suppliers named, then they are questioned and more connections may be made. Not to mention that these are 103 positive tests from major leaguers who can't come up with the same lame excuses we've heard before (especially since the government will know for what substance they tested positive and I'm sure many of those aren't in your everyday food and drink).

Is there a double standard here?

The numbers Hill put up in the minors were astounding, specially in AAA. Those numbers alone "should have" given him a free ticket to pitch at least a year in the majors regardless of his performance. Yet as I recall many people here didn't complain when he was demoted to the minors after his lack of performance in the majors (I'm refering to the 2006 season) He was labeled a AAAA pitcher and Hendry was criticized for not selling high on him when he had the chance.

Now we have Pie, who has less credentials than Hill and I see a lot more people questioning the Cubs for not giving him the job for *at least* 2 months to see what he can do. I don't get it.

IMO, minor league numbers are a guide but not a guarantee. They earn you playing time but not a free ticket. A lot of times it's just not performance but how you look. Pie has struckout around 30% of his at-bats and has look completely lost in the majority of them. He takes fastballs down the middle and the swings at balls way outside. His swing looks out of whack to a lot of people, including me.

The Cubs have chosen to sent him down and try their luck with Edmonds, who is a no risk given they only had to pay a quarter of a million to get him. This is not the Cubs of the past who give money to an over-the-hill star. Those teams PAID for those guys. If Edmonds doesn't produce you can simply cut him and there is no harm done.

Hill didn't have anything to prove at AAA when he was demoted yet when he came back he was a different pitcher. It's obvious that Pie has important things to work on in his swing and his approach. Like I said before I just don't get all the criticism that is being handed out at the Cubs for their handling of Pie. I understand it even less when I look back at the Hill situation.

As of today these is where the Cubs offense ranks in the majors:

Runs: 1st.

Average: 1st.

OBP: 1st.

Slugging: 2nd.

BB drawn: 2nd.

Now, did anybody expect this? To me this has come completely out of left field. I never expected the Cubs offense to crack the top 10 in the majors let alone be the top offense. Being second in BB drawn is just crazy... almost seems like we are in some kind of parallel world. Now, the question is, is this real and can we expect it throughout the whole season? For the stat oriented guys, what was the projected rank of the team in these categories?

You have to figure that Jason Marquis and Ted Lilly aren't in the Cubs starting rotation plans beyond 2009 (maybe earlier depending on trades). Ryan Dempster may be in that same boat too because if he has a decent year he'll seek a larger contract than what would make sense for the team. That leaves 3 rotation slots to be filled in the near future. Who do you think will end up filling them? Will the Cubs go for pitching in the free agent market?

Starting pitching is one area where the Cubs can control their payroll, which is already quite high. They definitely have arms that can fill these spots and will be paying them very little for many years. The probable candidates include: Sean Marshall, Sean Gallagher, Donald Veal and Jeff Samardzija. I am really fine with letting them compete for the spots and see what they can do. Thoughts on this?

It's becoming clearer and clearer that Murton is not the same hitter with men on base as when the bases are empty. Does anybody have ideas as to why? I thought of sample size, but I think he has had enough at bats with men on base for the numbers to be meaningful.

I used to be a fan of Murton but as time has gone by I have become more and more bugged by his lack of production. I call him the Un-Manny. Manny Ramirez is probably the best hitter of our generation (not counting Bonds and his steroid relations) and he has a knack of driving runners home. Murton, on the other hand, has a knack of not getting runners in. His OPS with runners on as well as the % of runners he drives in are pretty bad indeed. I find it very puzzling but the numbers are there.

Murton has a lifetime OPS around .820, which is not bad at all, especially if you think his best years are still ahead. Nonetheless, somehow I have gotten the impression that he hasn't performed well interms of knocking people in (RBI's). I wonder if it's just an impression I got or if the stats corroborate this. More than his numbers (AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS) with runners on, I think a good stat would be RBI's per baserunners, and comparing that with other players in the league. I remembering seeing this stat at mlbtraderumors.com and I liked it. I don't have the time to do that analysis right now but I wonder if I'm the only one who has this feeling about Murton.

This excerpt taken from an AP article posted at Espn.com. It goes:

"Last year, I got tested 9-to-10 times," Rodriguez said. "We have a very, very strict policy, and I think the game is making tremendous strides."

If Rodriguez had been tested that many times, either he was selected for an unusually high number of random checks or he might have been subjected to additional tests -- which would happen, for instance, if a player tests positive for a banned stimulant for the first time.

Later in the day, A-Rod said it was just hyperbole.

"My quote from earlier today was taken literally. I was not tested nine or 10 times last year. I was just using exaggeration to make a point," Rodriguez said in a statement through Yankees spokesman Jason Zillo.

"My intent was simply to shed light on the fact that the current program being implemented is working, and a reason for that is through frequent testing. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused."

So let me get this straight: he is trying to show that the current program is working by showing how frequently they are testing players and then to do that he exaggerates (lies) about the number of times he was tested. Either I'm losing my mind or that is some warped logic.

I know most everybody would have signed off on a deal that included a WS title in '03 followed by a significant stretch of mediocrity. Nonetheless, for the sake of speculation let's imagine the Cubs had in fact won the title in '03, what would have become of the Cubs afterwards?

I only have bad thoughts in mind. The Cubs in '03 were actually very lucky. They didn't have a team built on much philosophy or for the long run. They were not dominating in the regular season. What they had was a team built for the postseason: they had the kind of starting pitchers that could carry you despite of everything else. They almost did.

The years following the run in '03 showed progressively the problems in the way the team was built: too much reliance on power pitching (that has more tendency to get hurt), too little focus on OBP, too many middle of the road guys in the pen instead of farmhands who didn't have a place in the starting rotation but could contributed better in the pen (Marmol probably would have never flourished as a reliever back then), too many position players with lack of production and too much playing time. Etc.

Dusty Baker was part of the problem. Hendry was another part. And perhaps a little less budgetary flexibility than they have now.

A horrible '06 prompted drastic changes, none better than the signing of Piniella (probably Hendry's best move as GM) and things have a much better outlook now than before. Everbody has a chance of playing (young or old), so long as they produce. If things aren't working, changes will be made, conventional or not. Some of the problems mentioned earlier have been addressed to differing degrees: Fukudome means more OBP, Hill means a guy with a lot of upside but not a power pitcher (which means less risk), Marmol got his shot, Soto, Hart, etc. Veternas also have to earn their playing time when they don't produce (Eyre), but they CAN earn it back (Eyre). This might not be the Red Sox, but I think there is more vision now and a better plan in '03.

Now think... had the Cubs won it all in '03... how many years of Baker? Of Neifis, Hollandsworths, Goodwins, Vereses...?  To be honest, I probably would get nightmares if I think about this too much. A WS title might be worth to sign a deal with the devil, but ufffffffffff the pain afterwards would have been plenty.

Luis

Verducci has a nice article at si.com http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_verducci/02/05/verducci.YAE/index.html where he talks about the effect on the number of incremental innings for a pitcher as compared to the previous year and the effects that it may have the next year. It's a concept that has been talked about for a while now (he says he has been following the trends for about 10 years) so it's not something new, but still the article is nice.

As this concept relates to Prior, it's interesting because he had 67 incremental innings in 2003 and the rule of thumb being passed around is not more than 30. More interesting is the fact that had Prior not had that collision with Giles he would have had even more innings. So it's fair to say that the Cubs brass had no plan whatsoever concerning this matter back then.

It's fairly curious to see how the Yankees and Red Sox are dealing with their top pitching prospects. Some may say they are treating them like babies but these organizations certainly have a plan and an eye towards the long term.

Luis

Are we seeing a trend here?

If I'm not mistaken that's already three guys who have come out and basically said the same thing: F.P. Santangelo, Andy Pettite and Fernando Viña. What are they saying: they're admitting to using HGH, saying it was for rehab, and all are saying the never used steroids.

The more that these types of "confessions" come out, the more that all of them start sounding very hollow. I don't buy it one bit.

Luis

On the field my vote goes to Ramirez who has been a great consistent force in the lineup throughout the entire season.

Nonetheless, my vote for Cubs MVP has to go to Piniella. This team is basically mediocre (in 2004 they were at one point 20 games over .500 and still fighting for a playoff spot), but in my mind the guy has done all you could ask for with the players he has had available. I believe  he has given almost everyone a fair chance to play and he has picked the ones that have performed better. In years past, for example, Theriot wouldn't even have gotten a chance to show his value as an everyday shortstop (and btw, the Dodgers are paying 13 million to Furcal for similar production). Even more importantly, he seems to know how to handle difficulty and preventing things from escalating further (Zambrano situation, for example). His moves in-game are pretty dead-on most of time too. All in all, I believe his hiring was one of Hendry's finest moments this offseason.

Luis

PS: loved Piniella's comments about the Cubs hitters approach at the plate. Basically, he said that if you want a player with more disciplined approaches you need to get those type of guys in the winter, and not expect that with 2 weeks left in season people are going to become different players. That is just reality, and I hope Hendry, or whoever the Cubs GM is this winter, is listening.

One thing you can at least say about Hendry is that he wan't willing to compromise the future for a chance, or a slightly better probability, to win now. For a guy who's job is on the line that is refreshing to see. Especially considering that you can make deals which take some years to really see the backlash.

Cedeño has batted ridiculously good the last times he's been in AAA (this year and 2005). However, he has struggled mightly in he bigs. His situation is not too different from Rich Hill's, who right now has a mid 3's ERA (something very difficult to have in this day and age, not to mention for someone making minimum salary). So, how do we know how good Cedeño is going to be in the future?

It made sense (sort of) to have Blanco with Barrett, since one's strength was hitting and the other's fielding/game calling. But now with Kendall it seems that they wouldn't be complementing each other much at all. Koyie Hill might not project to be too good with the bat, but the fact that he is a switch hitter is always a plus, and he has held his own in terms of defense and game calling. So, what to do?

Luis

I think that today's game is pretty much it for me for this year. Around 1999-2000 I stopped watching Cubs games because I simply grew tired of the same bad play for too long. It wasn't until the end of the 2003 season that I started watching again. Since then I have again been religious in following this team but it just gets too tiring of the same old same old. If I saw a vision towards the future it wouldn't matter to me if the team was losing, but sadly, I don't see it. This year the Cubs rank 14th of 16 NL teams in BB taken, and that considering that they are 2nd in IBB, so you do the math. Another neat stat? The Cubs are 16th of 16 teams in sacrifice flies. I wonder why... Yes, the bullpen lost it again, and after 3 walks in the same inning. But you know what? I'm still more frustrated by the offense. The bullpen gave up 1ER in 4 innings. Had it gone to extra innings, how many more innings would they have needed to go before the Cubs scored a run? Anyway, I'll probably start watching whenever the team makes the playoffs again. It's just to painful and frustrating.

It's may and I'm already looking forward to next year. Wether that makes me a pessimist or realist or whatever else, it doesn't matter. What I wanted to bring up was this. Unless the Cubs make the playoffs, I believe Hendry will be fired. I personally don't think these Cubs are going to make the playoffs (but I'd be delighted if they did, of course). Now, given the contracts that are already signed, and thinking the next GM is going to be better than Hendry, how much is fixable? In my opinion there is a good core of players here and shuffling the right cards might do a lot to help this team. Here's how I see it.

Pitching wise: I think the organization has enough depth both in starting pitching and relief that it can have a good future with what's already at hand in the system/major leagues.

Position players: Aramis is locked up (fantastic), Lee is locked up (fantastic), Soriano is locked up (not so fantastic, and his contract makes him untradeable), I hope Barrett is resigned. After that, is where the real work comes in. 2nd and SS: the Cubs need a SS and either Theriot or Derosa at 2nd. Finding a good all around SS is a difficult job, so I don't know. The outfield is one huge mess. Soriano will be in left. Pie is the future in CF? I don't think so, at least, I hope he is not. Pie is another in the long line of "toolsy" players who have speed, some power, strikeout, and don't walk. If Soriano wasn't in LF then I could see Pie in CF, but both of them in the same outfield is death as they posses the same weaknesses. Finding a good overall CF is going to be hard, especially since it must certainly will need to be lefthanded. In any case, I think it will need to be a very bright GM to realize that Pie and Soriano can't be in the same outfield. As for RF, we need a huge offensive talent there. I'm talking about a guy slugs, gets on base, is good on defense, and so forth. Are there options outthere? Well I think Abreu would be a perfect fit for the Cubs, and he is a free agent. Obviously, he needs to get his power numbers back to a respectable level for it to make sense. I mean, I doubt he will be the Abreu of old (.1000 OPS), but if he can have a OPS above .850 with his patience, speed and defense, it would be a huge help. This lineup needs a monster in OBP to bring some much needed balance to the offense. Wether it's Abreu, or someone else, this has to be addressed seriously.

What kind of GM will the Cubs have after Hendry? I don't know. And frankly, there's not much history here for one to be optimistic. I guess it's going to depende wether a new corporation owns the Cubs, or if it's one of those ultra rich guys who want a hobby. I think if it's a corporate owenership we are doomed. If it's one of those ultra rich guys, well, nothing will be certain, but I think I'd be more optimistic.

It doesn´t make sense, at least to me. To me Jones last years was a subpar outfielder in terms of his offense, and specially bad when the pressure was on. Yet, the numbers don´t agree. As many have pointed out look at his OPS with runners on, on scoring position, close and late, etc., and he certainly produced above average. So, what gives? Why do I have a bad feeling when he is at the plate in key situations? Well, while trying to solve this dilema this is what I found. Look at Jones´ and other Cub hitters numbers after specifics counts (OPS after 0-1 count (AB), OPS after 1-2 count (AB), OPS after 0-2 count (AB):

J.Jones (2006): .534(260), .478(153), .158(112).
   (2004-2006): .608(750), .539(422), .342(304).

Murton (2006): .729(199), .790(115), .560(70).
  (2005-2006): .706(263), .743(147),  .582(92).

Barrett (2006): .826(166), .601(80),   .647(61).
   (2004-2006): .750(591), .607(298), .627(237).

Aramis (2006): .717(289), .734(144), .630(106).
   (2004-2006): .811(743), .670(396), .537(267).

A couple of things before comparing the numbers:

(1) All other things being equal, consistency is a valuable asset. If you have two hitters who finished the year with a .300 BA, but one hit .400 the first half and .200 the second half (or reverse) and the other hit .300 every month, which would you prefer?

(2) Think of an outfielder who has a career .700 OPS vs. another with a .900. One is well below average and the other is bordering on elite, right? Well, that´s a .200 difference in OPS can mean.

These stats are for falling behind in counts. The pattern is cristal clear: If Jones falls behind in the count it´s over. Plain and simple. Look at the differences in OPS in each respective category, with Cub hitters that vary in terms of how good they are and their hitting style. The difference is simply dramatic. Now think about this. Who are the pitchers that are near the strikezone early in the count? Usually these are the better pitchers, who get ahead and consequently have lower ERA´s. So, if Jones comes to the plate in a key situation and the pitchers throws the first pitch near the zone or in the zone and Jones doesn´t get a hit, well that pretty much means that the rest is history. Last year he was remarkably bad after getting behind. I mean, the numbers are incredible. In 112 AB (which is pretty significant number of at bats) after falling behind 0-2 he had an OPS of .158. Think about it. Even after just being behind 0-1 he averaged a .534 OPS. So, why do his numbers look OK as whole? I think most likely it means that Jones is well above average against the worse pitchers (those who don´t throw strikes and have higher ERA´s) and well below average against the better ones (those who throw strikes and have lower ERA´s). So, if the Jones comes up at a key time in the game and faces a pitcher who is around the plate you better hope that he gets a hit in the first pitch cause if he doesn´t you can just forget about it. Why do we feel that the script is written when he comes to the plate? I certainly believe this has a lot to do with it.

Luis

Postscript: how would you think Jones has fared in the postseason when he has probably faced pitchers with better control? How about a .605 OPS in 132 ABs. Is this the type of outfield hitter you´d want to count on?

For all the talk and theories about Wood and Prior's health issues during their careers I find that there has been a lot less talk and scrutinity about guys like Carl Pavano and Rich Harden both of whom have also been regulars on the DL for many years now, and in the case particular case of Pavano, who's injuries rival in silliness and diversity those of Wood's and Prior's. I don't know much about Harden's history, but at least in the case Pavano I don't think pitch counts have had anything to do with his injuries. Hell, he has never pitched that much. And now it looks like Tommy John for him and the realization for the Yankees that the return for those 40 million will be practically nothing. And let's not even talk about Mike Hampton. Guess sometimes there is no real answer for these things.

From reading Bruce Miles' column at the Daily Herald it seems that Theriot is the new shortstop, and should stay there for good if he continues to perform. Said Piniella:

"Theriot will be at shortstop. We've been looking for a way to get him into the lineup. In spring training we played him all over and here all over early in the season. He played very well at shortstop today."

If this is true, and it seems it is, then Piniella has taken step 1 of 2 into getting the most out of this offense. And he will have taken a step away from the Dusty book... you know, if Dusty was here you could all but guarantee that Izturis was the starting shortstop for the entire year. Good job Lou. Izturis can come as a defensive replacement when the Cubs have a lead in the latter innings. That's what ultra defensive players are for.

Luis

Now, for Murton in 2-hole... I think that will take some unforseen miracle.

I didn't want to do it... it hurts you know? But I did it. I went into ESPN.com and looked at J.D. Drew stats. And what did I find? He has his usual .900 OPS, he has drawn 10BB, 2HR, 8RBI... probably has played very good defense. And we have... ...? how many leftfielders? how many righthanded hitters? how many hitters who don't walk?