PDA

View Full Version : Cubs to sign Furcal? Still looking at Peavy?



kyleh1987
11-19-2008, 08:03 PM
According to cubs.com/mlblogs.com (http://hotstove.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/11/cubs_not_done_pitchingwise.html), the Chicago Cubs are interested in signin Furcal, who wants somewhere between a 3-4 year deal. They apparently are not done with trying to acquire Jake Peavy either.
If both these do in fact happen, the Cubs will be quite unstoppable, until the playoffs. haha. But either way, I think this is what the roation/ lineup should look like if both deals go down, what do you think?

Rotation:

Peavy
Zambrano
Lilly
Harden
Dempster

Lineup:
1.Furcal-SS
2.Theriot-2nd
3.Soriano-LF
4.Ramirez-3B
5.Lee-1ST
6.Soto-C
7.DeRosa-RF
8.Johnson/Fukudome
9.P

Sport
11-19-2008, 08:08 PM
According to cubs.com/mlblogs.com (http://hotstove.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/11/cubs_not_done_pitchingwise.html), the Chicago Cubs are interested in signin Furcal, who wants somewhere between a 3-4 year deal. They apparently are not done with trying to acquire Jake Peavy either.
If both these do in fact happen, the Cubs will be quite unstoppable, until the playoffs. haha. But either way, I think this is what the roation/ lineup should look like if both deals go down, what do you think?

Rotation:

Peavy
Zambrano
Lilly
Harden
Dempster

Lineup:
1.Furcal-SS
2.Theriot-2nd
3.Soriano-LF
4.Ramirez-3B
5.Lee-1ST
6.Soto-C
7.DeRosa-RF
8.Johnson/Fukudome
9.P

Hopefully if the Cubs do indeed acquire Peavy, they havve to give up Soto.:clap:

kyleh1987
11-19-2008, 08:09 PM
why in the blue hell would you want to give up soto?

kyleh1987
11-19-2008, 08:09 PM
oh your a pdre fan...haha

torontocubs
11-19-2008, 08:10 PM
It would certainly make this cubs team pretty damn impressive. I think they actually improve their bullpen moving Marmol to the closer role, although they will certainly take a loss at the set-up role, as gregg won't be able to replace the great job marmol did as set-up.

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 08:19 PM
According to cubs.com/mlblogs.com (http://hotstove.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/11/cubs_not_done_pitchingwise.html), the Chicago Cubs are interested in signin Furcal, who wants somewhere between a 3-4 year deal. They apparently are not done with trying to acquire Jake Peavy either.
If both these do in fact happen, the Cubs will be quite unstoppable, until the playoffs. haha. But either way, I think this is what the roation/ lineup should look like if both deals go down, what do you think?

Rotation:

Peavy
Zambrano
Lilly
Harden
Dempster

Lineup:
1.Furcal-SS
2.Theriot-2nd
3.Soriano-LF
4.Ramirez-3B
5.Lee-1ST
6.Soto-C
7.DeRosa-RF
8.Johnson/Fukudome
9.P
Failbus Minnesota boy.


Theriot anywhere in the top 7 of the lineup is just awful. He's an 8 hitter plain and simple. And I don't see the Cubs signing Furcal, SS-unfortunately-is not a primary position of concern for the Cubs

Hannibal Lecter
11-19-2008, 09:05 PM
Failbus Minnesota boy.


Theriot anywhere in the top 7 of the lineup is just awful. He's an 8 hitter plain and simple. And I don't see the Cubs signing Furcal, SS-unfortunately-is not a primary position of concern for the Cubs

Theriot batted 2nd almost all season. and he hit over .300/ thats not "just awful" by any means. what is it that you are basing your facts on, redwhitenblue? ignorance?

Philthy
11-19-2008, 09:14 PM
They really need Furcal in their lineup, but that would be very tough.

Gigantes4Life
11-19-2008, 09:26 PM
Honestly, why are the Cubs even still trying? :p

They're really appearing desperate now, signing every good FA they can.

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 09:47 PM
Theriot batted 2nd almost all season. and he hit over .300/ thats not "just awful" by any means. what is it that you are basing your facts on, redwhitenblue? ignorance?
Batting average is useless. He's most valuable in the 8th spot.


Have you heard of SLG before?

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 09:48 PM
Honestly, why are the Cubs even still trying? :p

They're really appearing desperate now, signing every good FA they can.
Yeah, they'd be much better off signing the Rich Aurilia's of the world

B.G.B
11-19-2008, 09:51 PM
yea you Cubs should sign Omar Vizquel lol

Hannibal Lecter
11-19-2008, 09:53 PM
Batting average is useless. He's most valuable in the 8th spot.


Have you heard of SLG before?

i consider batting average quite valuable. theriot is not at all a power hitter, so his slugging percentage wont be high (he had 1 homerun).
but i watched roughly 100 or more cubs games last season, and was very comfortable with theriot 2nd. he was a fundamental player, made contact, didnt hit into a lot of DPs, had a good opposite field swing, and was a very good baserunner. im sure he would do fine batting 8th, but to say that he is awful batting in the top 7 is as stupid as it is thoughtless

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 09:59 PM
i consider batting average quite valuable. theriot is not at all a power hitter, so his slugging percentage wont be high (he had 1 homerun).
but i watched roughly 100 or more cubs games last season, and was very comfortable with theriot 2nd. he was a fundamental player, made contact, didnt hit into a lot of DPs, had a good opposite field swing, and was a very good baserunner. im sure he would do fine batting 8th, but to say that he is awful batting in the top 7 is as stupid as it is thoughtless
Good for you, but batting average is barely valuable at all. It's about 10th on my list of important offensive stats.


Doesn't have to be a power hitter to have a SLG %, that includes 2B's and 3B's, he simply doesn't get many bases.


I watched more than 100 Cubs games, but it didn't matter if you watched 1 or 162, what you saw doesn't mean ****.




I have to laugh my *** off at one comment you make which clearly shows your uneducated stance on this.
"didn't hit into a lot of DPs"
:laugh2:

He had the highest DP % of any starter on the team, more than D Lee who everyone was complaining about DP's



Another joke of a statement "a very good baserunner."

He sucked on the basepaths this year, was constantly caught stealing and was a negative influence on the bases.



With the rest of the hitters the Cubs have, batting Theriot higher than 8th is dumb. Giving him MORE AB's in the year than Soriano, Ramirez, Lee, Soto, Derosa, the CF platoon and Fontenot is ridiculous.



Grow up, learn some stats, look at them before you speak and show your ignorance.
/rant

Hannibal Lecter
11-19-2008, 10:10 PM
Good for you, but batting average is barely valuable at all. It's about 10th on my list of important offensive stats.


Doesn't have to be a power hitter to have a SLG %, that includes 2B's and 3B's, he simply doesn't get many bases.


I watched more than 100 Cubs games, but it didn't matter if you watched 1 or 162, what you saw doesn't mean ****.




I have to laugh my *** off at one comment you make which clearly shows your uneducated stance on this.
"didn't hit into a lot of DPs"
:laugh2:

He had the highest DP % of any starter on the team, more than D Lee who everyone was complaining about DP's



Another joke of a statement "a very good baserunner."

He sucked on the basepaths this year, was constantly caught stealing and was a negative influence on the bases.



With the rest of the hitters the Cubs have, batting Theriot higher than 8th is dumb. Giving him MORE AB's in the year than Soriano, Ramirez, Lee, Soto, Derosa, the CF platoon and Fontenot is ridiculous.



Grow up, learn some stats, look at them before you speak and show your ignorance.
/rant

first of all...what 9 stats would you rank ahead of batting average? i know its not the most important, but it is certainly higher than that

slugging percentage is basically, like you mentioned, the amount of bases he got compared to his plate appaerances. a homerun is worth 4. one homerun will hurt that slugging percentage a lot.

i believe the games i watched do, in fact, mean ****. it means i am not basing my argument on pure stats that can be found online, but i am basing them on what i see in the game. i have no need to search the internet for stats in an online argument. i saw it for myself. as far as im concerned, your stats dont mean ****.

he was caught stealing a good bit, but he could go 1st to 3rd, 2nd to home, even first to home rather well. i dont recall seeing him picked off very much. he was not a "negative influence" on the basepaths.

if you watched many cubs games this year, or even followed the team, you would realize that the only reason he had more at bats then leadoff hitter soriano was because sori was hurt for a while. as for the other guys batting behind theriot, that is because they have more power and run production capabilities. theriot and his relatively high on base percentage get on base, the other guys knock him in. its not about theriot getting more at bats, its about a formula to win ball games.

and i dont need to sit on a computer and look up stats to see that. i learn that from a knowledge of the game and being a baseball fan for man years

edit-apt

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 10:16 PM
i believe the games i watched do, in fact, mean ****. it means i am not basing my argument on pure stats that can be found online, but i am basing them on what i see in the game. i have no need to search the internet for stats in an online argument. i saw it for myself. as far as im concerned, your stats dont mean ****.
And this is flawed, your memory doesn't store things equally, therefore it doesn't come out in an unbiased manner


he was caught stealing a good bit, but he could go 1st to 3rd, 2nd to home, even first to home rather well. i dont recall seeing him picked off very much. he was not a "negative influence" on the basepaths.
You don't recall, because you choose not to recall.


And thanks for the personal attack, makes your argument look even weaker

Hannibal Lecter
11-19-2008, 10:21 PM
And this is flawed, your memory doesn't store things equally, therefore it doesn't come out in an unbiased manner

You don't recall, because you choose not to recall.


And thanks for the personal attack, makes your argument look even weaker

if the personal attack makes my argument look weaker, i dont care. other peoples opinions of my argument with you really doesnt bother me at all.

your only argument
is that my memory is flawed. i disgree. i believe i know my memory and the things stored in it (the good, the bad, and the ugly throughout the years) crystal clear.

impress me. rather than attempt to say that my memory is flawed, go look up some stats, as you love to do. bring some relevance into your own argument. anything. come on. impress me

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 10:24 PM
if the personal attack makes my argument look weaker, i dont care. other peoples opinions of my argument with you really doesnt bother me at all.

your only argument
is that my memory is flawed. i disgree. i believe i know my memory and the things stored in it (the good, the bad, and the ugly throughout the years) crystal clear.

impress me. rather than attempt to say that my memory is flawed, go look up some stats, as you love to do. bring some relevance into your own argument. anything. come on. impress me
No, my entire argument is that his stats dictate he hit 8th (possibly even 9th).

The rebuttal to your "memory" point was that it's flawed.


If you think you remember everything good bad and ugly then I believe you need to be making a fortune as a freak in the media.


I've provided some of the basics, you can look them up, they're not hard to find.

SLG-sucks
DP% that you said was low-it's high (I know your memory must've just been fuzzy on that one)
SB%-awful


He had a nice OBP, which is the only reason I'm not screaming for him to be replaced completely. His defense is maybe, maybe, average.

Hannibal Lecter
11-19-2008, 10:32 PM
No, my entire argument is that his stats dictate he hit 8th (possibly even 9th).

The rebuttal to your "memory" point was that it's flawed.


If you think you remember everything good bad and ugly then I believe you need to be making a fortune as a freak in the media.


I've provided some of the basics, you can look them up, they're not hard to find.

SLG-sucks
DP% that you said was low-it's high (I know your memory must've just been fuzzy on that one)
SB%-awful


He had a nice OBP, which is the only reason I'm not screaming for him to be replaced completely. His defense is maybe, maybe, average.


you now mention he possibly should bat 9th. that you can make a good argument for. theriot 9th would impact the game in a very good way i believe. but not 8th. you mention he did in fact have a high OBP. thats why he would be wasted 8th. if he batted 8th, he would get on base for what? normally to be wasted by the pitcher. 2nd..he gets on base for the big hitters in the lineup. its not about his stats, its where he would most benefit the team, and its 2nd.
and i suppose ur right that he had a decent number of DPs. batting 2nd..he would have less opportunities to hit into a DP, because soriano, who is not an on base percentage guy..is in front of him. batting 8th...its more likely that guys will be on base. more opportunities for DPs.

in addition, you say his slugging percentage was low. well, 8th, he has a better chance to have more opportunities to knock more runs in, considering guys like johnson and derosa will be in front of him. if he has no power and isnt a run producer, why put him in those situations? 2nd, you wont have to worry! he will just get on and let the big guys knock him in.

he is an on base guy with good speed and fundamentally sound. 2nd is where he would benefit the team. or possibly, as you stated, 9th.

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 10:36 PM
you now mention he possibly should bat 9th. that you can make a good argument for. theriot 9th would impact the game in a very good way i believe. but not 8th. you mention he did in fact have a high OBP. thats why he would be wasted 8th. if he batted 8th, he would get on base for what? normally to be wasted by the pitcher. 2nd..he gets on base for the big hitters in the lineup. its not about his stats, its where he would most benefit the team, and its 2nd.
and i suppose ur right that he had a decent number of DPs. batting 2nd..he would have less opportunities to hit into a DP, because soriano, who is not an on base percentage guy..is in front of him. batting 8th...its more likely that guys will be on base. more opportunities for DPs.

in addition, you say his slugging percentage was low. well, 8th, he has a better chance to have more opportunities to knock more runs in, considering guys like johnson and derosa will be in front of him. if he has no power and isnt a run producer, why put him in those situations? 2nd, you wont have to worry! he will just get on and let the big guys knock him in.

he is an on base guy with good speed and fundamentally sound. 2nd is where he would benefit the team. or possibly, as you stated, 9th.
Normally to be wasted by the pitcher?

So you'd prefer someone who can get multiple bases be wasted-i.e. Derosa or Soto?
So those guys can both get on base and get to 2nd by themselves and you want them to be wasted by the pitcher instead?

"its not about his stats, its where he would most benefit the team"
The stats show where he'd most benefit the team, you have to look at both his stats and the rest of the hitters around him. On another team 2nd might be more acceptable, in the Cubs lineup it's not.

"in addition, you say his slugging percentage was low. well, 8th, he has a better chance to have more opportunities to knock more runs in, considering guys like johnson and derosa will be in front of him. if he has no power and isnt a run producer, why put him in those situations? 2nd, you wont have to worry! he will just get on and let the big guys knock him in."
Because those guys can move themselves to 2nd with their SLG, whereas he can't.



He's been an on-base guy for 1 year, 1, he has no track record to suggest he can sustain it either considering how god awful he was in 2007. He's got okay speed-not great, and he's fundamentally as good as most, he's not superior or awful.



Giving him the 2nd most AB's on the team is ludicrous.

Hannibal Lecter
11-19-2008, 10:42 PM
Normally to be wasted by the pitcher?

So you'd prefer someone who can get multiple bases be wasted-i.e. Derosa or Soto?
So those guys can both get on base and get to 2nd by themselves and you want them to be wasted by the pitcher instead?

"its not about his stats, its where he would most benefit the team"
The stats show where he'd most benefit the team, you have to look at both his stats and the rest of the hitters around him. On another team 2nd might be more acceptable, in the Cubs lineup it's not.

"in addition, you say his slugging percentage was low. well, 8th, he has a better chance to have more opportunities to knock more runs in, considering guys like johnson and derosa will be in front of him. if he has no power and isnt a run producer, why put him in those situations? 2nd, you wont have to worry! he will just get on and let the big guys knock him in."
Because those guys can move themselves to 2nd with their SLG, whereas he can't.



He's been an on-base guy for 1 year, 1, he has no track record to suggest he can sustain it either considering how god awful he was in 2007. He's got okay speed-not great, and he's fundamentally as good as most, he's not superior or awful.



Giving him the 2nd most AB's on the team is ludicrous.

theriot had a higher OBP then johnson/derosa. he is more likely to be on base to be "wasted".

moving runners over isnt only slugging percentage, it could be done by bunts, hittin the ball the other way, etc. thats what theriot is good at.

you can continue to hate theriot but i said what i needed to say. having watched him, he was one of the more consistent hitters on the team.

tomno00
11-19-2008, 10:53 PM
Batting average is useless. He's most valuable in the 8th spot.


Have you heard of SLG before?

wow ok... BA is useless? That's the first time ive heard that.

zambo4president
11-19-2008, 11:04 PM
Honestly, why are the Cubs even still trying? :p

They're really appearing desperate now, signing every good FA they can.

Oh yeah when signing people you want to sign the ones that suck, of course your gonna go after impact players and "good" players, were not the giants over here

zambo4president
11-19-2008, 11:05 PM
Hopefully if the Cubs do indeed acquire Peavy, they havve to give up Soto.:clap:

In what possible way does it make the slightest bit of sense to trade Soto? Please tell me

DewsSox79
11-19-2008, 11:07 PM
this should be posted in the cubs forum.

the cubs being interested is different from the cubs to sign furcal. im sure this thread will get closed

Soto>Norris
11-19-2008, 11:13 PM
It would certainly make this cubs team pretty damn impressive. I think they actually improve their bullpen moving Marmol to the closer role, although they will certainly take a loss at the set-up role, as gregg won't be able to replace the great job marmol did as set-up.

Assuming the cubs dont trade Samardzija for Peavy, from a cub fan point of view, Sam is actually better than Marmol, and can be more reliable at times. Gregg can just go suck it and be 7th inning.

Soto>Norris
11-19-2008, 11:15 PM
this should be posted in the cubs forum.

the cubs being interested is different from the cubs to sign furcal. im sure this thread will get closed

Why are you so sensitive to the point that a simple choice of words is making you want to have this thread closed...or is it the fact that being a sox fan just makes you jealous...

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 11:25 PM
theriot had a higher OBP then johnson/derosa. he is more likely to be on base to be "wasted".

moving runners over isnt only slugging percentage, it could be done by bunts, hittin the ball the other way, etc. thats what theriot is good at.

you can continue to hate theriot but i said what i needed to say. having watched him, he was one of the more consistent hitters on the team.
Unless it's the ninth inning, or bottom 8 at home, bunts are essentially a terrible thing.

Hitting the ball the other way only matters if it's a hit, otherwise it's just another out that decreases your chances of scoring.


Now you say Theriot was consistent, I hate to say it but your memory is failing you YET again

For the second year in a row he plummeted in August/September. He had two very nice months (April, July), 1 'meh' month bordering on crap (May), and 3 pile of **** months (June, August, September)


wow ok... BA is useless? That's the first time ive heard that.
Then you haven't been in very good statistical discussions.

AVG is included in OBP, by itself it's useless. Juan Pierre is miles ahead of Adam Dunn by batting average standards. Yet he doesn't get on base at a better %, so what do his hits mean? Nothing.

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 11:25 PM
Assuming the cubs dont trade Samardzija for Peavy, from a cub fan point of view, Sam is actually better than Marmol, and can be more reliable at times. Gregg can just go suck it and be 7th inning.
Shark is not better than Marmol. You take the cake for dumbest statement yet in this thread-and that's a serious accomplishment with what's been discussed

DewsSox79
11-19-2008, 11:29 PM
Why are you so sensitive to the point that a simple choice of words is making you want to have this thread closed...or is it the fact that being a sox fan just makes you jealous...

jealous? no buddy 101 years bro not jealous. :)

2nd- when you read through the threads and see "cubs to sign furcal" and you go to read about it and it is they are interested is a dumb choice of words. If we had a section for teams being interested in players I think we would have 4,0936,374 threads already of teams interested in whoever. I just think the thread belongs in the cubs forums with all the 200 peavy threads and FA rumors.

DewsSox79
11-19-2008, 11:30 PM
Shark is not better than Marmol. You take the cake for dumbest statement yet in this thread-and that's a serious accomplishment with what's been discussed

Marmol>shark all day long.

tomno00
11-19-2008, 11:36 PM
AVG is included in OBP, by itself it's useless. Juan Pierre is miles ahead of Adam Dunn by batting average standards. Yet he doesn't get on base at a better %, so what do his hits mean? Nothing.


ok, that is one example. Adam dunn walks a lot and hits a ton of more HR's. But in general, a higher batting avg usually implies that all of your other stats will be better.

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 11:38 PM
ok, that is one example. Adam dunn walks a lot and hits a ton of more HR's. But in general, a higher batting avg usually implies that all of your other stats will be better.
No it doesn't, at all, not at all.

A higher average means nothing to those other stats other than your OBP very likely can't be lower than your BA (I think there is one way it can be, but I can't recall)


Theriot's AVG was nice, but he had a lower SLG than almost every other Cubs player, so the high average didn't imply a damn thing

DewsSox79
11-19-2008, 11:39 PM
ok, that is one example. Adam dunn walks a lot and hits a ton of more HR's. But in general, a higher batting avg usually implies that all of your other stats will be better.

not at all.

DewsSox79
11-19-2008, 11:40 PM
but RWB is also wrong to say that juan pierres hits mean nothing.

tomno00
11-19-2008, 11:43 PM
how does it not imply? if you blindfold every other stat besides BA, who are you more likely to take.... the guy that hits .250 or the guy that hits .300? the one that hits .300 because you will feel more confident that his other stats will be better too.

DewsSox79
11-19-2008, 11:49 PM
how does it not imply? if you blindfold every other stat besides BA, who are you more likely to take.... the guy that hits .250 or the guy that hits .300? the one that hits .300 because you will feel more confident that his other stats will be better too.

I think the debate can go on and on. we should probably stop :)

tomno00
11-19-2008, 11:52 PM
haha ok, just answer that question though and then we'll stop

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 11:53 PM
how does it not imply? if you blindfold every other stat besides BA, who are you more likely to take.... the guy that hits .250 or the guy that hits .300? the one that hits .300 because you will feel more confident that his other stats will be better too.
Why would you blindfold every other stat? That's a pointless argument, making up stuff just for the sake of argument.

To answer: I wouldn't take either because I'd suggest someone was hiding the truth from me if they were only offering BA of 2 players.


BA is nice if everything else is similar (IsOP, AVG/OBP differential) etc. Otherwise, what's the use, it ignores way too much of the, well, important parts of the game

Soto>Norris
11-19-2008, 11:55 PM
Shark is not better than Marmol. You take the cake for dumbest statement yet in this thread-and that's a serious accomplishment with what's been discussed

Look, Marmol is really solid, but he did go through an absolutely horrible streak around the all star break. If we want a lidge or k rod, we cant have a closer who at times is the most dominant pitcher in baseball, and at others, is as good as bob howry. The closer role is a one time shot. You get three outs to work with, and a small margin for error. If Marmol pulls off another streak like that he wont make for an epic closer. I just think that in the future shark might have more potential.

DewsSox79
11-19-2008, 11:55 PM
haha ok, just answer that question though and then we'll stop

you will feel more confident sure. But the reason the debate sucks is. juan pierre can have a good batting avg but it doesnt help him hit homeruns because thats just not what he does, and it doesnt help him get RBIs because he is a leadoff hitter. but he does steal and score runs.

but I do think having a .300 hitter isnt a bad thing either

redwhitenblue
11-19-2008, 11:56 PM
Look, Marmol is really solid, but he did go through an absolutely horrible streak around the all star break. If we want a lidge or k rod, we cant have a closer who at times is the most dominant pitcher in baseball, and at others, is as good as bob howry. The closer role is a one time shot. You get three outs to work with, and a small margin for error. If Marmol pulls off another streak like that he wont make for an epic closer. I just think that in the future shark might have more potential.
If by absolutely horrible you mean the 2-3 bad games, yes, absolutely horrible:rolleyes:


Shark rarely worked back to back days.






Hate to break this to you, K-Rod, Lidge all those guys have games like that. If you're really that naive, go look at game logs.



You can think Shark has the better potential as a dominating reliever, you'd just be horribly wrong, and your analysis is poor and full of massive holes.

tomno00
11-19-2008, 11:58 PM
you will feel more confident sure. But the reason the debate sucks is. juan pierre can have a good batting avg but it doesnt help him hit homeruns because thats just not what he does, and it doesnt help him get RBIs because he is a leadoff hitter. but he does steal and score runs.

but I do think having a .300 hitter isnt a bad thing either

i agree. but the whole debate was cetered around the fact that BA was called worthless. Though it may not be the most important, it isnt worthless.

DewsSox79
11-20-2008, 12:00 AM
If by absolutely horrible you mean the 2-3 bad games, yes, absolutely horrible:rolleyes:


Shark rarely worked back to back days.






Hate to break this to you, K-Rod, Lidge all those guys have games like that. If you're really that naive, go look at game logs.



You can think Shark has the better potential as a dominating reliever, you'd just be horribly wrong, and your analysis is poor and full of massive holes.

whoa! that was intense! come on RWB cut the new guy some slack. talk about rippin someones head off. that post is priceless :):):)

tomno00
11-20-2008, 12:01 AM
Why would you blindfold every other stat? That's a pointless argument, making up stuff just for the sake of argument.

To answer: I wouldn't take either because I'd suggest someone was hiding the truth from me if they were only offering BA of 2 players.


BA is nice if everything else is similar (IsOP, AVG/OBP differential) etc. Otherwise, what's the use, it ignores way too much of the, well, important parts of the game

ok, but again hitting for a higher avg implies you make more contact. Making more contact usually implies you hit more homeruns. Hitting more homeruns implies pitchers fear you more, thus you will walk more. Chipper jones, lance berkman, david right, etc... are all examples. Adam Dunn is the only example i can think of who has a bad avg, but does well in other stats.

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 12:03 AM
jealous? no buddy 101 years bro not jealous. :)

2nd- when you read through the threads and see "cubs to sign furcal" and you go to read about it and it is they are interested is a dumb choice of words. If we had a section for teams being interested in players I think we would have 4,0936,374 threads already of teams interested in whoever. I just think the thread belongs in the cubs forums with all the 200 peavy threads and FA rumors.

Look, im honestly so tired of this 101 year ********. Ive only been around for 16 of them, so honestly, why the **** should I care about the first 85. In my lifetime, as far as im concerned, the Sox do have a world title. Im not going to hide that from myself. But as far as the future goes, and as far as next year goes, anyone who thinks that the sox have **** on the Cubs can go jerk off Peter Gammons, and just hope that some of his knowledge can rub off on them. The Cubs have recently been more successful than the Sox, and that is all I care about. Give me one reason why you Sox fans even have a right to talk smack about the Cubs and all their potential. If the Cubs win a world series this year, im not looking at it as "the cubs just broke a 101 year drought". Im looking at it as "the cubs just broke a 16 year drought". I dont have any reason to be sad or disappointed about the first 85. In fact that will just make it all the sweeter when the Cubs do in fact win it.

DewsSox79
11-20-2008, 12:04 AM
i agree. but the whole debate was cetered around the fact that BA was called worthless. Though it may not be the most important, it isnt worthless.

oops. I didnt catch that part. worthless? not at all. OBP is better but AVG is not worthless.

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 12:11 AM
im pretty sure that Marmol actually gave up at least one run in 5 of seven games at one point in the drought. According to mu extremely simple calculations, that could very well tally up to 5 bs in 7 oppurtunities. Thats more that 2-3 bad games. ...And my argument has holes. Look, the last thing i wanna do is rip on my own players, especially one as good as Marmol. I just hope that this inconsistency goes away.

DewsSox79
11-20-2008, 12:11 AM
Look, im honestly so tired of this 101 year ********. Ive only been around for 16 of them, so honestly, why the **** should I care about the first 85. In my lifetime, as far as im concerned, the Sox do have a world title. Im not going to hide that from myself. But as far as the future goes, and as far as next year goes, anyone who thinks that the sox have **** on the Cubs can go jerk off Peter Gammons, and just hope that some of his knowledge can rub off on them. The Cubs have recently been more successful than the Sox, and that is all I care about. Give me one reason why you Sox fans even have a right to talk smack about the Cubs and all their potential. If the Cubs win a world series this year, im not looking at it as "the cubs just broke a 101 year drought". Im looking at it as "the cubs just broke a 16 year drought". I dont have any reason to be sad or disappointed about the first 85. In fact that will just make it all the sweeter when the Cubs do in fact win it.

First off dont take your anger out on me because RWB just lit you up about Marmol.

2nd- I do not even care if the cubs win or lose. It means nothing to me. you said I was jealous and I responded. I have nothing to be jealous about. Great you can get Furcal Manny Peavy Arod all of Japan I do not care you fill up your park with hot drunk depaul girls and lincoln park trixies I do not care. All i care about is the WhiteSox winning another title in my lifetime.

How have you been more successful? Back to Back division champs? great!!!!!! and not winning one playoff game!

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 12:14 AM
First off dont take your anger out on me because RWB just lit you up about Marmol.

2nd- I do not even care if the cubs win or lose. It means nothing to me. you said I was jealous and I responded. I have nothing to be jealous about. Great you can get Furcal Manny Peavy Arod all of Japan I do not care you fill up your park with hot drunk depaul girls and lincoln park trixies I do not care. All i care about is the WhiteSox winning another title in my lifetime.

How have you been more successful? Back to Back division champs? great!!!!!! and not winning one playoff game!

All it takes is 11 good games buddy, anyone can do it if they catch fire at the right time. The Cubs will seemingly break through at one point if they keep getting oppurtunities.

Muttman73
11-20-2008, 12:14 AM
I hope they sign everyone...Furcal, CC, Texeira and drive their payroll up to 300 million
It will only make the annual October choke job that much more enjoyable

DewsSox79
11-20-2008, 12:16 AM
I hope they sign everyone...Furcal, CC, Texeira and drive their payroll up to 300 million
It will only make the annual October choke job that much more enjoyable

OMFG! :laugh::laugh::laugh: too funny

DewsSox79
11-20-2008, 12:17 AM
All it takes is 11 good games buddy, anyone can do it if they catch fire at the right time. The Cubs will seemingly break through at one point if they keep getting oppurtunities.

i know

Muttman73
11-20-2008, 12:19 AM
Look, im honestly so tired of this 101 year ********. Ive only been around for 16 of them, so honestly, why the **** should I care about the first 85. In my lifetime, as far as im concerned, the Sox do have a world title. Im not going to hide that from myself. But as far as the future goes, and as far as next year goes, anyone who thinks that the sox have **** on the Cubs can go jerk off Peter Gammons, and just hope that some of his knowledge can rub off on them. The Cubs have recently been more successful than the Sox, and that is all I care about. Give me one reason why you Sox fans even have a right to talk smack about the Cubs and all their potential. If the Cubs win a world series this year, im not looking at it as "the cubs just broke a 101 year drought". Im looking at it as "the cubs just broke a 16 year drought". I dont have any reason to be sad or disappointed about the first 85. In fact that will just make it all the sweeter when the Cubs do in fact win it.

I'm glad to hear that you are only 16 as it explains your stupidity. Enjoy your lovable losers and hope/pray that you get to see them win a series in your lifetime. In the meantime I suggest you keep your half *** thoughts to yourself...there will be plenty of opportunities for you to be stupid and belligerent when you get older.

DewsSox79
11-20-2008, 12:21 AM
I'm glad to hear that you are only 16 as it explains your stupidity. Enjoy your lovable losers and hope/pray that you get to see them win a series in your lifetime. In the meantime I suggest you keep your half *** thoughts to yourself...there will be plenty of opportunities for you to be stupid and belligerent when you get older.

Im crying because I am laughing so hard. so ****ing funny!

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 12:23 AM
I hope they sign everyone...Furcal, CC, Texeira and drive their payroll up to 300 million
It will only make the annual October choke job that much more enjoyable

ive been on PSD for maybe 2 weeks, and i would like to give you a medal of originality. You must be the 7th or 8th person to say that since ive been on this site. I dont know what team you root for, or how many games youve ever seen in your life, but im pretty sure that CC and Tex are both out of the question, and if you like 300 mil chokes as of recently, go over to the yankees forum and talk **** about them.

DewsSox79
11-20-2008, 12:26 AM
ive been on PSD for maybe 2 weeks, and i would like to give you a medal of originality. You must be the 7th or 8th person to say that since ive been on this site. I dont know what team you root for, or how many games youve ever seen in your life, but im pretty sure that CC and Tex are both out of the question, and if you like 300 mil chokes as of recently, go over to the yankees forum and talk **** about them.

relax he is giving you a hard time. he is just joking around.

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 12:27 AM
I dunno i must just be a fan of evidence or something like that, but can someone point out some indisputable proof that the Cubs wont do it sometimes soon? I dont want to hear anything about the past, especially from you Sox fans (should prove you wrong with the fact that the Sox sucked until 05). Also, no curses or anything that legitimately doesnt make sense, only facts, and stats. Anyone? give me something to get angry at. Do your best though, cuz i know your motivated to piss me off.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 12:32 AM
ok, but again hitting for a higher avg implies you make more contact. Making more contact usually implies you hit more homeruns. Hitting more homeruns implies pitchers fear you more, thus you will walk more. Chipper jones, lance berkman, david right, etc... are all examples. Adam Dunn is the only example i can think of who has a bad avg, but does well in other stats.
Who cares about higher average's correlation to contact. K's at the ML level are not on another level of out, they are basically the same as popouts, ground outs and most flyouts.


Making more contact does not usually imply you hit more homeruns, period. That statement is 100% false.


The rest is kind of ridiculous correlation on your part as well.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 12:33 AM
I dunno i must just be a fan of evidence or something like that, but can someone point out some indisputable proof that the Cubs wont do it sometimes soon? I dont want to hear anything about the past, especially from you Sox fans (should prove you wrong with the fact that the Sox sucked until 05). Also, no curses or anything that legitimately doesnt make sense, only facts, and stats. Anyone? give me something to get angry at. Do your best though, cuz i know your motivated to piss me off.
For a fan of indisputable proof and evidence, you sure failed on your Shark>Marmol comment.

Massive failure at that.

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 12:36 AM
you will feel more confident sure. But the reason the debate sucks is. juan pierre can have a good batting avg but it doesnt help him hit homeruns because thats just not what he does, and it doesnt help him get RBIs because he is a leadoff hitter. but he does steal and score runs.

but I do think having a .300 hitter isnt a bad thing either

Although Pierre doesnt have a high slg or anything like that, he in a sort of strange way, has a higher unofficial slg that most guys. Every walk or single for him is basically a double with the SB, so strangely, he has more "power" than most power hitters. Although I guess a guy like Ichiro is a better example due to more hits, and a higher SB%.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 12:38 AM
Although Pierre doesnt have a high slg or anything like that, he in a sort of strange way, has a higher unofficial slg that most guys. Every walk or single for him is basically a double with the SB, so strangely, he has more "power" than most power hitters.
No, it simply doesn't work that way.

Start taking away everytime he gets on base and gets CS or picked off as well. And do it by the appropriate measures (.22 for SB, -.36 for CS)



Also, add in those bases and it's still not impressive. Cute, but no cigar.

the coach
11-20-2008, 12:44 AM
One question for those debating Avg. Who was the best hitter of all time?

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 12:47 AM
One question for those debating Avg. Who was the best hitter of all time?
Probably someone who excelled at almost every offensive category, including OBP, SLG, RC, WAR and possibly average.


Although, you'll get those arguing that the term "best hitter" is simply the person with the highest average all time while the actual best hitter is defined as "best offensive player" since walks don't count for hitters.

the coach
11-20-2008, 12:48 AM
Probably someone who excelled at almost every offensive category, including OBP, SLG, RC, WAR and possibly average.


Although, you'll get those arguing that the term "best hitter" is simply the person with the highest average all time while the actual best hitter is defined as "best offensive player" since walks don't count for hitters.

That is a great answer. I thought for sure Ted Williams name was going to surface.

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 12:50 AM
i think its pretty obvious that its probable someone within 40 or so years due to the fact that pitchers simply werent as good way back when Noah gathered 2 of every animal. Statistics should be eliminated in a situation such as that.

the coach
11-20-2008, 12:51 AM
Probably someone who excelled at almost every offensive category, including OBP, SLG, RC, WAR and possibly average.


Although, you'll get those arguing that the term "best hitter" is simply the person with the highest average all time while the actual best hitter is defined as "best offensive player" since walks don't count for hitters.

I can see that side with walks for sure. Bonds and Thomas come to mind. Give them a hit for every walk, so baiscally add 100 hits to their avg. and then what would be the batting avg.

the coach
11-20-2008, 12:55 AM
i think its pretty obvious that its probable someone within 40 or so years due to the fact that pitchers simply werent as good way back when Noah gathered 2 of every animal. Statistics should be eliminated in a situation such as that.

I don't agree, balls were dead, parks were bigger and no juice...And, now with drying out ash and maple bats to make them ultra light but still having pop is quite different then those of 40 years ago. Just the personal training is huge. Hell, half the old timers worked 2nd jobs.

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 01:07 AM
If Barry Bonds averages as many walks per year as say, Vlad, he would average appx. 60 more AB's per year, which according to his carrer average, would be almost 18 more hits per year. Over a 22 year span, thats 396 more hits tallied to his carrer total. He would have about 3331 career hits. Who knows what that would mean for his average.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 01:11 AM
I can see that side with walks for sure. Bonds and Thomas come to mind. Give them a hit for every walk, so baiscally add 100 hits to their avg. and then what would be the batting avg.
It would basically be their OBP

Hence why OBP is a better stat

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 01:12 AM
If Barry Bonds averages as many walks per year as say, Vlad, he would average appx. 60 more AB's per year, which according to his carrer average, would be almost 18 more hits per year. Over a 22 year span, thats 396 more hits tallied to his carrer total. He would have about 3331 career hits. Who knows what that would mean for his average.
It's pretty easy to see what that would do, considering you gave him the same number of hits per extra AB, his average would be exactly the same.

jpt912f
11-20-2008, 01:13 AM
It's pretty easy to see what that would do, considering you gave him the same number of hits per extra AB, his average would be exactly the same.

:laugh:priceless

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 01:15 AM
Well im just used his average as a number i can work with, while it would be more sufficient to use an averarge from one of his better years. I was just saying that would be his average amount of hits, sorta ignoring the amount of ab's but i assumed they would be lower. Thats why i didnt give the number of total AB's.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 01:19 AM
Well im just used his average as a number i can work with, while it would be more sufficient to use an averarge from one of his better years. I was just saying that would be his average amount of hits, sorta ignoring the amount of ab's but i assumed they would be lower. Thats why i didnt give the number of total AB's.
It, doesn't, matter.


You said you were giving him a total of hits equivalent to his average, then said you didn't know what it would do to his average. It clearly would not change it

jpt912f
11-20-2008, 01:20 AM
Well im just used his average as a number i can work with it would be more sufficient to use an averarge from one of his better years. I was just saying that would be his average amount of hits, sorta ignoring the amount of ab's but i assumed they would be lower. Thats why i didnt give the number of total AB's.

so he's losing the number of walks, gaining hits, but his # of AB's dont change...? dont you see a flaw in that reasoning?

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 01:24 AM
so he's losing the number of walks, gaining hits, but his # of AB's dont change...? dont you see a flaw in that reasoning?

As far as im concerned, i dont know any way to get an official result. And i said that his AB's would drop per hit due to the fact that we are guessing in his prime years when he got the most amount of walks, that he would get more hits in those opputunity. I just used the avg number of hits so that i could have something to work off of, but that number probably should be higher. Only problem is, theres not exact way to calculate that.

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 01:27 AM
feel free to help me find this out if u want.

jpt912f
11-20-2008, 01:29 AM
As far as im concerned, i dont know any way to get an official result. And i said that his AB's would drop per hit due to the fact that we are guessing in his prime years when he got the most amount of walks, that he would get more hits in those opputunity. I just used the avg number of hits so that i could have something to work off of, but that number probably should be higher. Only problem is, theres not exact way to calculate that.

ok..ok...ignore the hits thing...so his ABs are goin down, bc he is losing walks and gaining hits?? u realize if he gets a hit, i takes an AB right? and if we are replacing a walk with a hit, it adds an AB also

ill say it again,
anyway you look at it, if we replace a walk with a hit, he gains an AB too

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 01:47 AM
nevermind. I was just representing a higher average by lowering the amount of AB's. Can you think of any way to do it?

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 07:07 PM
Unless it's the ninth inning, or bottom 8 at home, bunts are essentially a terrible thing.

Hitting the ball the other way only matters if it's a hit, otherwise it's just another out that decreases your chances of scoring.


Now you say Theriot was consistent, I hate to say it but your memory is failing you YET again

For the second year in a row he plummeted in August/September. He had two very nice months (April, July), 1 'meh' month bordering on crap (May), and 3 pile of **** months (June, August, September)

Then you haven't been in very good statistical discussions.

AVG is included in OBP, by itself it's useless. Juan Pierre is miles ahead of Adam Dunn by batting average standards. Yet he doesn't get on base at a better %, so what do his hits mean? Nothing.

1st of all, bunting can move a runner into scoring position, which increases the chance of them scoring, in any ining. not just 8th and 9th. its called small ball.

hitting the ball the other way, for a righty, if its a hit it gives the lead runner a much better chance to score or go 1st to 3rd. if its an out, an opposite field stroke still gives the 3rd base runner a better chance to tag up then if the hit went to left, and gives the 2nd base runner a better chance to move up. theriot isnt a power or long ball player. thats more small ball. thats his specialty. it doesnt much show up in your beloved stats, but it helps the team.

if the stats say theriot had bad months, fine.
april: .340, .415 OBP
may (borderline crap acording to you: .308, .407 OBP
june (according to you a **** month: .309, .369 OBP
july: .333, .395 OBP.
august (you say a **** month): .281, .384 OBP
september (a **** month to you): .278, .360 OBP

u say he swooned in august and september, (hitting .280 with a .377 over the 2 month span), but ur buddy derosa hit in the .230s in the last month! derrek lee hit .266 in the 2nd half! theriot was actually 2nd on the team in OBP in the last 2 months!
he hit iver .300 every month of the year except august and september, and had an OBP over .380 4 in months.
seems like my memory of theriot being consistent wasnt so failing after all.
he was more consistent then any other cubs hitter, (except maybe, maybe derosa.) if you can find more consistent cubs hitters than theriot, use ur stats and prove it.

and then you say BA alone is useless because it is included in OBP...you make it seem as though theriot doesnt have a high OBP. did you know that he led the cubs in OBP, and was 8th in the entire NL? i didnt even know that, i went by memory.

i also do belive, wheter you do or not, that BA is, in fact, important. did you know that ur boy theriot not only led the Cubs with his .307, but was 6th in the whole national league?

and in 580 at bats, he only struck out 58 times?

so his lsugging percentage isnt high, but hes not a power hitter. doesnt try to be. he gets on base, and gets hits, moves runners over, and is a fast baserunner. with his high OBP (8th in the NL and 1st on the Cubs...), he is often on base for guys like lee, ramirez, soto, and derosa to knock him in. sounds like a fine 2 hitter to me.

hey...this looking up the stats business is pretty cool. it proves my memory right!

Seamhead
11-20-2008, 07:17 PM
1st of all, bunting can move a runner into scoring position, which increases the chance of them scoring, in any ining. not just 8th and 9th. its called small ball.

Bunting very rarely increases your chances of scoring run:

http://www.tangotiger.net/customlwts.html

It's called Throwawayoutsball.


hitting the ball the other way, for a righty, if its a hit it gives the lead runner a much better chance to score or go 1st to 3rd. if its an out, an opposite field stroke still gives the 3rd base runner a better chance to tag up then if the hit went to left, and gives the 2nd base runner a better chance to move up. theriot isnt a power or long ball player. thats more small ball. thats his specialty. it doesnt much show up in your beloved stats, but it helps the team.

If your specialty is doing thing that helps the team by such a diminutive amount, then you are screwed.

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 07:30 PM
Bunting very rarely increases your chances of scoring run:

http://www.tangotiger.net/customlwts.html

It's called Throwawayoutsball.



If your specialty is doing thing that helps the team by such a diminutive amount, then you are screwed.

i said his specialty was doing the small things. moving runners over, getting on base himself. (6th in league in OBP), fundamental stuff. and his .307 average isnt bad either.

and i dont care about some stat website says about bunting.i know for a fact that it can help win games. how do i know? i have SEEN it happen. on many occasions.

Seamhead
11-20-2008, 07:36 PM
i said his specialty was doing the small things. moving runners over, getting on base himself. (6th in league in OBP), fundamental stuff. and his .307 average isnt bad either.

Getting on-base isn't a small thing. On the contrary, it's possible the single most important thing a player can do.


and i dont care about some stat website says about bunting.i know for a fact that it can help win games. how do i know? i have SEEN it happen. on many occasions.

Yes, and the data has seen it, too, and it actually tracks all of it. Without any bias.

1908_Cubs
11-20-2008, 07:43 PM
Furcal is massively overrated, and if the Cubs sign him, I will not only cry myself to sleep every night, it will also be a pathetic move on the part of Hendry. Just awful.

Jon Kish
11-20-2008, 07:48 PM
I'm a yankee fan but have alot of love for the cubs they are my NL team---and I love Lou and Soriano with furcal you'd take a big piece away from the dodgers and Peavy would definitely put you #1 NL easily phillies will step back fla cant pay people NYM? tey are always decent LAD probably arent the same either despite having a great young squad without Manny and Furcal? I believe without Lowe they are in trouble and Manny too? deep **** Cubs are a lock but thats a pretty big increase in payroll? If I had to pick one Furcal cant Jeff Samardijia---u know who I mean start yet? He looks really good?

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 07:53 PM
Getting on-base isn't a small thing. On the contrary, it's possible the single most important thing a player can do.



Yes, and the data has seen it, too, and it actually tracks all of it. Without any bias.

i know that. and when i first mentioned "his specialty", i wasnt just referring to moving players over, i was referring to "small ball" in general. i mentioned his high OBP and BA. you just ignored that part of the post and said that his only specialty was moving runners over, which you said was pathetic.
no, him being in the top 10 in both BA and OBP, in addition to all the small things that he does that dont show up in the stats, is what makes him a good player.
im not sayin he is amazing, or an MVP candidate, or anyhting extraordinary, but he is certainly a good player and much better than redwhitenblue is giving him credit for. he can definately help a team win.

let me ask you, because this was the purpose of the original argument, do you think that theriot batting anywhere in the top 7 spots of a lineup is "just awful", as redwhitenblue does? that was the statement that started it all. do you agree with that statement?

1908_Cubs
11-20-2008, 07:55 PM
i know that. and when i first mentioned "his specialty", i also mentioned his high OBP and BA. you just ignored that part of the post and said that his only specialty was moving runners over, which you said was pathetic.
no, him being in the top 10 in both BA and OBP, in addition to all the small things that he does that dont show up in the stats, is what makes him a good player.
im not sayin he is amazing, or an MVP candidate, or anyhting extraordinary, but he is certainly a good player and much better than redwhitenblue is giving him credit for. he can definately help a team win.

let me ask you, because this was the purpose of the original argument, do you think that theriot batting anywhere in the top 7 spots of a lineup is "just awful", as redwhitenblue does? that was the statement that started it all. do you agree with that statement?
It's not awful, but it's not good, either.

Honestly, he should be hitting 9th, behind the pitcher. He gets the least amount of at bats on the team, which will take away his SLGing problem. But he can be used as the "elusive 2nd lead off hitter" and gives a guy with a closer to .400 OBP in front of Soriano.

Hitting him leadoff would be absolutely stupid though.

Freel for prez
11-20-2008, 07:57 PM
If the Cubs get Furcal what do you do with Theriot, Derosa, and Fontenot? Derosa to RF? Theriot to 2B? Fontenot bench player?

1908_Cubs
11-20-2008, 07:58 PM
If the Cubs get Furcal what do you do with Theriot, Derosa, and Fontenot? Derosa to RF? Theriot to 2B? Fontenot bench player?

That's why the Cubs don't get Furcal. It's stupid.

Fontenot is a bench player to start with, anyways.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:01 PM
i know that. and when i first mentioned "his specialty", i wasnt just referring to moving players over, i was referring to "small ball" in general. i mentioned his high OBP and BA. you just ignored that part of the post and said that his only specialty was moving runners over, which you said was pathetic.
no, him being in the top 10 in both BA and OBP, in addition to all the small things that he does that dont show up in the stats, is what makes him a good player.
im not sayin he is amazing, or an MVP candidate, or anyhting extraordinary, but he is certainly a good player and much better than redwhitenblue is giving him credit for. he can definately help a team win.

let me ask you, because this was the purpose of the original argument, do you think that theriot batting anywhere in the top 7 spots of a lineup is "just awful", as redwhitenblue does? that was the statement that started it all. do you agree with that statement?
Go do run predictions with the Cubs lineup, by far the best lineups are with Theriot 8th or 9th.
so his lsugging percentage isnt high, but hes not a power hitter. doesnt try to be. he gets on base, and gets hits, moves runners over, and is a fast baserunner. with his high OBP (8th in the NL and 1st on the Cubs...), he is often on base for guys like lee, ramirez, soto, and derosa to knock him in. sounds like a fine 2 hitter to me.
I'm picking this part of that big post because it basically sums your entire failure in this argument.

Would you say a guy with a .475 SLG and a .290 OBP is okay too because his SLG is high even though his OBP is horrendous?
No, you want guys who do both parts. There are many guys who don't have very high SLG, but there is a difference between high and horribly pathetic where Theriot is.

He's had 1, count it, 1 acceptable year and 1, the same number, 1 year where he was clearly in the bottom 10 of all hitters in the MLB. Both years his defense left a lot to be desired.



Having horrendous SLG isn't acceptable just because your OBP is okay. Every single Cubs starter had an OBP of .340 or above (which is ridiculously good), but Theriot's SLG was 20 points lower than the worst Cubs starter besides him (Fukudome)
I don't care that he doesn't strike out much, strikeouts are horribly overrated as a form of an out. For being a good baserunner, his SB% sucks.


He should be the Cubs #1 focus outside of possbily shoring up the BP once they get their LH RF that they want. It is THE spot to be improved.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:02 PM
It's not awful, but it's not good, either.

Honestly, he should be hitting 9th, behind the pitcher. He gets the least amount of at bats on the team, which will take away his SLGing problem. But he can be used as the "elusive 2nd lead off hitter" and gives a guy with a closer to .400 OBP in front of Soriano.

Hitting him leadoff would be absolutely stupid though.
Oh but 2nd he's absolutely perfect for.


I thought it was funny earlier when he made several statements that were flat out incorrect and proven wrong statistically and he just basically shrugged them off.

My favorite was that Theriot doesn't hit into DP's, when he had the highest % of DP's on the team per chance.

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 08:03 PM
Seamhead, would you answer my question please? do you believe that a guy who was top 10 in the league in both BA and OBP, has good speed, and is a sound fundamental player would be "just terrible" in the top 7 spots of a lineup?

btw, though i am happy with theriot batting 2nd, i would not object to him hitting 9th. i believe he could have a very good effect on the lineup batting 9th, but not 8th.

1908_Cubs
11-20-2008, 08:05 PM
Go do run predictions with the Cubs lineup, by far the best lineups are with Theriot 8th or 9th.I'm picking this part of that big post because it basically sums your entire failure in this argument.

Would you say a guy with a .475 SLG and a .290 OBP is okay too because his SLG is high even though his OBP is horrendous?
No, you want guys who do both parts. There are many guys who don't have very high SLG, but there is a difference between high and horribly pathetic where Theriot is.

He's had 1, count it, 1 acceptable year and 1, the same number, 1 year where he was clearly in the bottom 10 of all hitters in the MLB. Both years his defense left a lot to be desired.



Having horrendous SLG isn't acceptable just because your OBP is okay. Every single Cubs starter had an OBP of .340 or above (which is ridiculously good), but Theriot's SLG was 20 points lower than the worst Cubs starter besides him (Fukudome)
I don't care that he doesn't strike out much, strikeouts are horribly overrated as a form of an out. For being a good baserunner, his SB% sucks.


He should be the Cubs #1 focus outside of possbily shoring up the BP once they get their LH RF that they want. It is THE spot to be improved.

As much as I agree that Theriot is a spot that can be upgraded, they wont, and they can't. With the money they still have to spend on a RF'er, and a LOOGY and with the money they spent on Dempster already - they're finished. They don't have the money to go trading someone with a .400 OBP and a sub 500k contract away, or replacing him.

Being stuck with Theriot is a for sure thing. And honestly, it's not even a "need". It's more of a "want" if anything. We need a RF'er. We need a LOOGY. We want a better SS, but they're just simply going to cost far too much. And I don't see any viable option out there right now for us to get. Furcal, Renteria (who's been brutal and worse than Theriot, 2 of the last 4 years), and whomever else is on the FA market is simply not a choice. It might be different if it wasn't just Furcal, though.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:07 PM
Seamhead, would you answer my question please? do you believe that a guy who was top 10 in the league in both BA and OBP, has good speed, and is a sound fundamental player would be "just terrible" in the top 7 spots of a lineup?

btw, though i am happy with theriot batting 2nd, i would not object to him hitting 9th. i believe he could have a very good effect on the lineup batting 9th, but not 8th.
What does his SLG rank?

And where is this sound fundamental crap coming from. The fact that he can lay down a bunt that actually HURTS the team most of the time? That he can swing to the opposite field on purpose-which on the Cubs is not that uncommon, only Soriano really sucks at it. That's just a joke, a sound fundamental player doesn't get thrown out 13 out of 35 SB attempts.

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 08:08 PM
Go do run predictions with the Cubs lineup, by far the best lineups are with Theriot 8th or 9th.I'm picking this part of that big post because it basically sums your entire failure in this argument.

Would you say a guy with a .475 SLG and a .290 OBP is okay too because his SLG is high even though his OBP is horrendous?
No, you want guys who do both parts. There are many guys who don't have very high SLG, but there is a difference between high and horribly pathetic where Theriot is.

He's had 1, count it, 1 acceptable year and 1, the same number, 1 year where he was clearly in the bottom 10 of all hitters in the MLB. Both years his defense left a lot to be desired.



Having horrendous SLG isn't acceptable just because your OBP is okay. Every single Cubs starter had an OBP of .340 or above (which is ridiculously good), but Theriot's SLG was 20 points lower than the worst Cubs starter besides him (Fukudome)
I don't care that he doesn't strike out much, strikeouts are horribly overrated as a form of an out. For being a good baserunner, his SB% sucks.


He should be the Cubs #1 focus outside of possbily shoring up the BP once they get their LH RF that they want. It is THE spot to be improved.

first, theriot did not bat 9th once last year. and i dont run predictions, prediction are never completely accurate.

no, i wouldnt say i guy with those numbers is good. i am not a huge fan of power/SLG hitters. OBP is the most important stat for an offensive player.
hes not a great base stealer, but a good baserunner, if you know what i mean by that.

theriot is a solid player, stop trying to make him look like some sort of joke.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:08 PM
As much as I agree that Theriot is a spot that can be upgraded, they wont, and they can't. With the money they still have to spend on a RF'er, and a LOOGY and with the money they spent on Dempster already - they're finished. They don't have the money to go trading someone with a .400 OBP and a sub 500k contract away, or replacing him.

Being stuck with Theriot is a for sure thing. And honestly, it's not even a "need". It's more of a "want" if anything. We need a RF'er. We need a LOOGY. We want a better SS, but they're just simply going to cost far too much. And I don't see any viable option out there right now for us to get. Furcal, Renteria (who's been brutal and worse than Theriot, 2 of the last 4 years), and whomever else is on the FA market is simply not a choice. It might be different if it wasn't just Furcal, though.
I agree, and I said earlier in the thread that because his OBP wasn't '07 bad I was okay with them not upgrading his position this offseason before handling other things.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:10 PM
first, theriot did not bat 9th once last year. and i dont run predictions, prediction are never completely accurate.

no, i wouldnt say i guy with those numbers is good. i am not a huge fan of power/SLG hitters. OBP is the most important stat for an offensive player.
hes not a great base stealer, but a good baserunner, if you know what i mean by that.

theriot is a solid player, stop trying to make him look like some sort of joke.
Run predictions are more accurate than your memory.

And who cares where he hit last year, why is that even in the discussion?

If you're going solely by itself, SLG correlates more to RC than OBP

It's when you put them together that OBP becomes weighted. You seem to not understand SLG or are just ignorant of how important it is.

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 08:11 PM
What does his SLG rank?

And where is this sound fundamental crap coming from. The fact that he can lay down a bunt that actually HURTS the team most of the time? That he can swing to the opposite field on purpose-which on the Cubs is not that uncommon, only Soriano really sucks at it. That's just a joke, a sound fundamental player doesn't get thrown out 13 out of 35 SB attempts.

im not sure, pretty low. but thats not what he does. he gets on base. that is his job, and he does it well. he is not a player that will get homers and drive in runs and whatnot. he gets on base.

he is a good bunter (which when done at the right time helps the cubs), has a good oppo field swing (which i realize a lot of cubs do, but why should that diminish theriot?

you also called him barely average at defense, i agree hes not great, but i wouldnt hesitate to call him above average and at a minimum "solid"

granted hes not a great base stealer.

Pierzynski4Prez
11-20-2008, 08:12 PM
I'm sorry but this thread has some of the worse posts I have ever seen in my life.

I'm with you Hannibal the Cannibal. I had to watch too many damn Cubs games because of my roommate, and I think Theriot is a great 2 hitter or can even be a leadoff hitter. He so easily slices the ball into right field so much. He gets on base so much, and I do believe he was one of the tops in the NL in runs scored. And don't go saying he only scored because of the guys batting behind him. They didn't get hits everytime he was on base, Theriot was on base so much which is why D. Lee grounded into so many double plays. And this is coming from someone who ****** hates the cubs.

Soto guy or whoever, you are very young, and one thing you need to learn is that NOTHING is guaranteed. Nothing. I can't really say the sox will ever win one again, because I don't know, just like you can't say the cubs will win one definately.

1908_Cubs
11-20-2008, 08:13 PM
first, theriot did not bat 9th once last year. and i dont run predictions, prediction are never completely accurate.

no, i wouldnt say i guy with those numbers is good. i am not a huge fan of power/SLG hitters. OBP is the most important stat for an offensive player.
hes not a great base stealer, but a good baserunner, if you know what i mean by that.

theriot is a solid player, stop trying to make him look like some sort of joke.

No one said he did bat. Only that he should.

SLG'ing is almost as important as OBP, and there are studies run, that claim SLGing correlates higher to run output than OBP does (some do not, though). And his good baserunning skills do not make up for his pathetic SLGing.

He's an acceptable player. He's not solid. He's acceptable. I'd love to upgrade his scrappy little ***, but it's not in the cards, sadly.

Doesn't mean he's solid.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:14 PM
im not sure, pretty low. but thats not what he does. he gets on base. that is his job, and he does it well. he is not a player that will get homers and drive in runs and whatnot. he gets on base.

he is a good bunter (which when done at the right time helps the cubs), has a good oppo field swing (which i realize a lot of cubs do, but why should that diminish theriot?

you also called him barely average at defense, i agree hes not great, but i wouldnt hesitate to call him above average and at a minimum "solid"

granted hes not a great base stealer.
It's EVERY player's job to get on base AND get multiple bases. Every player.


Do you know what I call a good bunter, a bench player. They're useless in innings 1-8.

A good opposite field swing is only useful if he also pulls it, using all fields. An only oppo field swing is no better than an only pull swing.



His defense is BARELY average if that. Not a great arm, weak range to his right, he handles what he can get to most of the time, but he's one of the weaker defensive SS's the Cubs have had in a while (probably only better than Nomar)

1908_Cubs
11-20-2008, 08:15 PM
I'm sorry but this thread has some of the worse posts I have ever seen in my life.

I'm with you Hannibal the Cannibal. I had to watch too many damn Cubs games because of my roommate, and I think Theriot is a great 2 hitter or can even be a leadoff hitter. He so easily slices the ball into right field so much. He gets on base so much, and I do believe he was one of the tops in the NL in runs scored. And don't go saying he only scored because of the guys batting behind him. They didn't get hits everytime he was on base, Theriot was on base so much which is why D. Lee grounded into so many double plays. And this is coming from someone who ****** hates the cubs.

Soto guy or whoever, you are very young, and one thing you need to learn is that NOTHING is guaranteed. Nothing. I can't really say the sox will ever win one again, because I don't know, just like you can't say the cubs will win one definately.
Way to only add to it.

He was on base a lot. Know how you avoid double plays? By Ryan Theriot SLGing better than my mom would be and instead of always being just on first base, maybe getting to 2nd or 3rd base every once and a while.

He's an acceptable player. He's not good.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:15 PM
I'm sorry but this thread has some of the worse posts I have ever seen in my life.

I'm with you Hannibal the Cannibal. I had to watch too many damn Cubs games because of my roommate, and I think Theriot is a great 2 hitter or can even be a leadoff hitter. He so easily slices the ball into right field so much. He gets on base so much, and I do believe he was one of the tops in the NL in runs scored. And don't go saying he only scored because of the guys batting behind him. They didn't get hits everytime he was on base, Theriot was on base so much which is why D. Lee grounded into so many double plays. And this is coming from someone who ****** hates the cubs.

Soto guy or whoever, you are very young, and one thing you need to learn is that NOTHING is guaranteed. Nothing. I can't really say the sox will ever win one again, because I don't know, just like you can't say the cubs will win one definately.
Theriot is a great 2 hitter like Uribe is a great 3 hitter.

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 08:16 PM
Run predictions are more accurate than your memory.

And who cares where he hit last year, why is that even in the discussion?

If you're going solely by itself, SLG correlates more to RC than OBP

It's when you put them together that OBP becomes weighted. You seem to not understand SLG or are just ignorant of how important it is.

i belive my memory is more accurate. why? because the things in my memory actually happened. predictions are what somebody puts together out of probable stats.

i know very well what SLG is. and it is important in some cases. BUT IT IS NOT THE TYPE OF PLAYER THERIOT IS. he is NOT a power hitter! he is NOT a big producer! he simply gets on base! thats all! thats his damn job! thats the type of player he is! and i think he is pretty damn good at it.

how long have you been a baseball fan? you are striking me as someone who has a big knowledge of stats but little knowledge of the game itself. i am not a stat nerd. i watch games, i see for myself what happens, and i see what makes the team win.

watch a game or two next season. tell me that theriot is useless

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:20 PM
i belive my memory is more accurate. why? because the things in my memory actually happened. predictions are what somebody puts together out of probable stats.Your memory is bias


i know very well what SLG is. and it is important in some cases. BUT IT IS NOT THE TYPE OF PLAYER THERIOT IS. he is NOT a power hitter! he is NOT a big producer! he simply gets on base! thats all! thats his damn job! thats the type of player he is! and i think he is pretty damn good at it.
Then he simply only does half of what a hitter should do. Every hitter has the same job, get on base, get multiple bases. Certain guys don't get passes on half of that, otherwise 95% of the MLB would be solid hitters.
how long have you been a baseball fan? you are striking me as someone who has a big knowledge of stats but little knowledge of the game itself. i am not a stat nerd. i watch games, i see for myself what happens, and i see what makes the team win.

watch a game or two next season. tell me that theriot is useless
You're not just "not a stat nerd", you're ignorant of them. You can "see" whatever you want to see, hence why it doesn't work.


Watch a game or two? Listen up junior, you have no clue who the **** you're talking to, if you're actually a Cubs fan and spend a minute or two in the Cubs forum next year, you're going to have a damn difficult time talking your way out of a paper bag. You can call me Miagi, kiddo, start listening and don't speak unless spoken to.

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 08:20 PM
It's EVERY player's job to get on base AND get multiple bases. Every player.
Do you know what I call a good bunter, a bench player. They're useless in innings 1-8.

A good opposite field swing is only useful if he also pulls it, using all fields. An only oppo field swing is no better than an only pull swing.



His defense is BARELY average if that. Not a great arm, weak range to his right, he handles what he can get to most of the time, but he's one of the weaker defensive SS's the Cubs have had in a while (probably only better than Nomar)

it is every players job to get on base, and not many are better at it than theriot.

theriot can pull it at times, though he is mainly a push hitter. but it could be better. say you have a speedy guy on second. the ball goes to left in front of the fielder. that guy isnt scoring. now say, same scenario...but the ball goes in front of the right fielder. granted its no guarantee, but there is a much better chance of the runner scoring on that. the same basic principle can be applied to a guy going 1st to 3rd.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:22 PM
it is every players job to get on base, and not many are better at it than theriot.
Last year

In 2007 almost every player was better at OPS than Theriot. Care to explain that shocker?
say you have a speedy guy on second. the ball goes to left in front of the fielder. that guy isnt scoring. now say, same scenario...but the ball goes in front of the right fielder. granted its no guarantee, but there is a much better chance of the runner scoring on that.Give me a stat that says it's a better chance, considering most teams put the better arm in RF.

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 08:28 PM
Your memory is bias

Then he simply only does half of what a hitter should do. Every hitter has the same job, get on base, get multiple bases. Certain guys don't get passes on half of that, otherwise 95% of the MLB would be solid hitters.You're not just "not a stat nerd", you're ignorant of them. You can "see" whatever you want to see, hence why it doesn't work.


Watch a game or two? Listen up junior, you have no clue who the **** you're talking to, if you're actually a Cubs fan and spend a minute or two in the Cubs forum next year, you're going to have a damn difficult time talking your way out of a paper bag. You can call me Miagi, kiddo, start listening and don't speak unless spoken to.

my memory may be bias, but predictions didnt even happen at all.

theriot does his whole job...all his purpose is is to get on base. thats it. one way or another.

you say that last year theriot was good at his job, finally. but then you bring up 2007. that is irrelevant now. and i will not waste my time looking up any more useless stats. watch a game and see it for yourself.

you ignorant fool. "Junior"?, you dont know me in the slightest. you call me kiddo..do you know how old i am boy? i have seen a hell of a lot more in this world then you will ever live to see. and nobody in this world will ever tell me not to speak unless i am spoken to. you ignorant young man, i have earned a lot of respect. i have done many things, some that i am proud of, many that i am not. Nobody in the last 25 years has ever told me to my face not to speak unless spoken to. you are quite lucky to be somewhere behind a keyboard right now. because if anybody i knew personally said that to me, i promise you they would regret it.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:30 PM
theriot does his whole job...all his purpose is is to get on base. thats it. one way or another.
False. EVERY HITTER has the job to get on base and slug, doing one half is not doing his whole job.

you ignorant fool. Junior, you dont know me in the slightest. you call me kiddo..do you know how old i am boy? i have seen a hell of a lot more in this world then you will ever live to see. and nobody in this world will ever tell me not to speak unless i am spoken to. you ignorant young man, i have earned a lot of respect. i have done many things, some that i am proud of, many that i am not. Nobody in the last 25 years has ever told me to my face not to speak unless spoken to. you are quite lucky to be somewhere behind a keyboard right now. because if anybody i knew personally said that to me, i promise you they would regret it. Highly doubt that, sport.


Needless to say, you need to shut your mouth, read up a little bit on some of the very intelligent posters we have on this forum and try to understand the game a little more before getting into a pointless back and forth argument where you're continually proven wrong, yet refuse to accept it.

CY24
11-20-2008, 08:35 PM
Honestly, why are the Cubs even still trying? :p

They're really appearing desperate now, signing every good FA they can.

Just take out "Cubs" and replace it with "Giants" and that statement will make sense.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:37 PM
you say that last year theriot was good at his job, finally. but then you bring up 2007. that is irrelevant now. and i will not waste my time looking up any more useless stats. watch a game and see it for yourself.
I only agreed with your statement that not many were better than him at it last year, not that it was his job.


2007 is irrelevant but 2008 is all empowering? That makes no goddamn sense.

You haven't brought forth any stats except BA and OBP, you've ignored SLG, you've ignored SB%, you've highlight pointless stats and set your focus on OBP as the only thing a player has to do to be useful. Saying SLG is basically not important.

Jigsaw
11-20-2008, 08:41 PM
LOL at redwhitenblue basing his argument off of predictions he ran through a program. Last I checked computer don't watch and understand baseball.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:42 PM
LOL at redwhitenblue basing his argument off of predictions he ran through a program. Last I checked computer don't watch and understand baseball.
Not basing the argument, simply adding points to it as to where Theriot is best suited to hit.

The argument is how pathetic his SLG is and how his OBP is nice but unpredictable.



No one can watch and understand the game, it has to be counted, none of us can remember every play, every pitch that it would take to correctly understand each player

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 08:48 PM
Not basing the argument, simply adding points to it as to where Theriot is best suited to hit.

The argument is how pathetic his SLG is and how his OBP is nice but unpredictable.



No one can watch and understand the game, it has to be counted, none of us can remember every play, every pitch that it would take to correctly understand each player


ryan howard slugged .543 last year. a lotta homers and rbis. but his OBP was ranked 48th in the national league, and around 100th in MLB. so do you consider that howard only did "half his job" and isnt really a good player?

(for the record, i do not think that howard is a good baseball player, just powerful.

and just saying...the of baseball game most certainly can be understood.

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 08:52 PM
ryan howard slugged .543 last year. a lotta homers and rbis. but his OBP was ranked 48th in the national league, and around 100th in MLB. so do you consider that howard only did "half his job" and isnt really a good player?

(for the record, i do not think that howard is a good baseball player, just powerful.

and just saying...the of baseball game most certainly can be understood.
I'd say Howard has room for improvement in the OBP department. However in '06 and '07 his OBP was sky-high, and you can't base your thoughts on a guy based off of only one year's numbers when there are other years to consider.


Considering Howard is not a good baseball player in your mind, explain how his OBP in '06 and '07 was .425 and .392, both years WELL above Theriot's 2008 OBP.

Hannibal Lecter
11-20-2008, 09:00 PM
id rather not. its not now a howard argument. and im not basing it on 06 and 07, im basing all of what i said on 2008. why? because that is the most likely "prediction" of how they will perform next year. basically they just figured out how to pitch to howard now. if he doesnt adjust severely, he will repeat this years misery.

let me ask you...would you take howard on your team at 1B?

redwhitenblue
11-20-2008, 09:08 PM
id rather not. its not now a howard argument. and im not basing it on 06 and 07, im basing all of what i said on 2008. why? because that is the most likely "prediction" of how they will perform next year. basically they just figured out how to pitch to howard now. if he doesnt adjust severely, he will repeat this years misery.

let me ask you...would you take howard on your team at 1B?
It's a major flaw in your argument.

You're basing all of what you say on a certain time period, why can't I just base everything on Theriot on August/September '08 then?

It doesn't work that way, you have to realize the past plays a part in evaluating players statistics.


And no, I hate to break this to you, the most recent year is not always the most likely "prediction" of how they will perform next year. I offer to you the hundreds upon hundreds of players who play at a level of suck to average, have one great year, then go back to suck or average. Hell if you're a Cubs fan, go look at Jacque Jones.



Hell yeah I'd take Howard as my 1B.

HomelessRobles
11-20-2008, 09:17 PM
first, theriot did not bat 9th once last year. and i dont run predictions, prediction are never completely accurate.

no, i wouldnt say i guy with those numbers is good. i am not a huge fan of power/SLG hitters. OBP is the most important stat for an offensive player.
hes not a great base stealer, but a good baserunner, if you know what i mean by that.

theriot is a solid player, stop trying to make him look like some sort of joke.

I'd say OPS is easily a better stat. And unless you get into more complex stats that can be debated by people who are much more knowledgeable about these things than I am, it is the best quick indicator of a hitter's success. (IMO, anyway. It's what I look at.)

I'm no sabermetrician-- I can appreciate it when people talk about it intelligently, but I don't pretend to know alot about it.

I don't much like the idea of Theriot, or anyone else but the pitcher, hitting 9th. I don't think you give more ABs to a pitcher or even pinch hitters than you have to.

Soto>Norris
11-20-2008, 09:32 PM
Honestly, why are the Cubs even still trying? :p

They're really appearing desperate now, signing every good FA they can.

Zito?

northsider
11-21-2008, 08:55 AM
This follows the pattern's of all of our cubs threads starts on one subject and immediatly goes to convo's about Theriot.

carson08
11-21-2008, 10:37 AM
Having horrendous SLG isn't acceptable just because your OBP is okay.


I disagree. OBP is the single most important hitting stastic there is. No other stat comes close. SLG, while important, is fairly misleading. As I'm sure you know, in a players' SLG average a double is worth two singles. That's just not true. Two singles is defintely more vaulable than one double.

You also seem to think AVG is useless. I won't lie, one time I was a misinformed sabermetric idiot too. I have said that in the past. But again, that's just not the case. Look at this situation. You have a runner on second and first base in open. The batter gets walked. The runner at second is still at second. If the batter gets a hit, the runner most likely scores. Obviously that's a situation where you have to account for intentional walks, pitchers pitching around the batter, etc. But, baseball is all about manufacturing runs. And in a situation with runners on base, a hit betters your chance of scoring that run.

I also don't buy your strikeout arguement. A strikeout is the worst out you can get. Anything can happen when you hit the ball in play.

tobygullion
11-21-2008, 10:46 AM
Ryan Theriot is fine in the #2 hole. If the Cubs are fortunate to get Furcal, Theriot's natural inside-out swing makes him a natural at shooting the ball to the right side to get the runner over. He's patient at the plate and would allow the leadoff hitter a chance to steal bases and despite you not wanting to acknowledge that a .307 average (2nd in the NL among full-time short stops)

Theriot was 5th in the NL among shortstops in on base percentage at .387, despite what you say he was 2nd among full-time shortstops in average in the entire NL...5th in hits...was 2nd in walks...All this adds up to a guy who gets on base. Why would you want to waste a guy like that down in the 8 hole when other than Zambrano, your pitching staff won't be driving in many runs. You can get that kind of production out of your #2 guy then your looking at 2 men on for the big boppers. Theriot did nothing but hit and take a ton of pitches last season which also will help the middle of the order in terms of the number of pitches they get to see and down the road in the game leading to fatigue which could open up the cement mixing breaking balls or fastballs up to drive.

If you look at the other guys in the lineup I don't know that anyone else who is on the roster as it stands would be a better fit. You could possibly make a case to move Lee up, but his recent Double Play problems prohibit that.

1. Rafael Furcal - SS
2. Ryan Theriot - 2B
3. Derrek Lee - 1B
4. Aramis Ramirez - 3B
5. Alfonso Soriano - LF
6. Mark DeRosa - RF
7. Geovany Soto - C
8. Johnson/Fukudome
9. P

Rotation:
1. Jake Peavy
2. Carlos Zambrano
3. Ryan Dempster
4. Rich Harden
5. Ted Lilly

Your gonna have to give Harden more rest and probably Peavy a couple of extra days off as well so splitting them up makes sense.

Just my thoughts...that's the great thing about the hot stove league...you just never know.

sep11ie
11-21-2008, 11:33 AM
They'll still choke. They are the N.L. Yankees

HomelessRobles
11-21-2008, 11:50 AM
I disagree. OBP is the single most important hitting stastic there is. No other stat comes close. SLG, while important, is fairly misleading. As I'm sure you know, in a players' SLG average a double is worth two singles. That's just not true. Two singles is defintely more vaulable than one double.

You also seem to think AVG is useless. I won't lie, one time I was a misinformed sabermetric idiot too. I have said that in the past. But again, that's just not the case. Look at this situation. You have a runner on second and first base in open. The batter gets walked. The runner at second is still at second. If the batter gets a hit, the runner most likely scores. Obviously that's a situation where you have to account for intentional walks, pitchers pitching around the batter, etc. But, baseball is all about manufacturing runs. And in a situation with runners on base, a hit betters your chance of scoring that run.

I also don't buy your strikeout arguement. A strikeout is the worst out you can get. Anything can happen when you hit the ball in play.

1. Baseball is about scoring runs and keeping the other team from doing so. "Manufacturing" runs should never be the goal, if by "manufacturing" you mean intentionally getting outs to somehow increase likelihood of scoring runs.

2. How is a strikeout worse than a pop-out, a line-out, a groundout, a fly out, or any other contact-out? The end result is the same if no one's on base, and is often worse when there are runners on base. Outs are bad. All outs.

carson08
11-21-2008, 05:14 PM
1. Baseball is about scoring runs and keeping the other team from doing so. "Manufacturing" runs should never be the goal, if by "manufacturing" you mean intentionally getting outs to somehow increase likelihood of scoring runs.

2. How is a strikeout worse than a pop-out, a line-out, a groundout, a fly out, or any other contact-out? The end result is the same if no one's on base, and is often worse when there are runners on base. Outs are bad. All outs.


By "manufacturing" runs I basically meant to score runs. But if I said to score runs, I figured someone would misinterpet that and go on a rant about how useless RBI's are (which in a lot cases are)

As for the second part, no a strikeout to lead off an inning is no different than a ground out. But by striking out all the time, you never have a chance to run out a ground ball, never have a chance to advance a runner, never have a chance to get on by an error. Being able to make contact is essential. And although you didn't say it, you seem to implied that striking out with men on is better as it avoids double plays. You do have a good point on that one. However, taking a player of equal offensive ability who does strike out over a player who doesn't is just stupid.

redwhitenblue
11-21-2008, 05:42 PM
I disagree. OBP is the single most important hitting stastic there is. No other stat comes close. SLG, while important, is fairly misleading. As I'm sure you know, in a players' SLG average a double is worth two singles. That's just not true. Two singles is defintely more vaulable than one double.

You also seem to think AVG is useless. I won't lie, one time I was a misinformed sabermetric idiot too. I have said that in the past. But again, that's just not the case. Look at this situation. You have a runner on second and first base in open. The batter gets walked. The runner at second is still at second. If the batter gets a hit, the runner most likely scores. Obviously that's a situation where you have to account for intentional walks, pitchers pitching around the batter, etc. But, baseball is all about manufacturing runs. And in a situation with runners on base, a hit betters your chance of scoring that run.

I also don't buy your strikeout arguement. A strikeout is the worst out you can get. Anything can happen when you hit the ball in play.
You'd hate to see the correlations showing that SLG by itself is closer to RC than OBP is by itself.

Only together does it correlate better when OBP is weighted.


And in your situation, the batter walked, how many outs did that cost the team? Did that shorten the amount of opportunities that team has to drive that run in?

OR

Does the next hitter have the same opportunity to simply not make an out by walk or hit to advance the runners or drive one in? Are you suggesting a hitter expand his zone by swinging at balls to drive a runner in, even though by doing so he greatly increases his chances of simply making an out without driving in a run?

Hits are nice, walks are nice, anything that gets you on base without making an out is a success, and the more bases you can get, the better. The closer to being driven in you are.

Seamhead
11-21-2008, 06:50 PM
You'd hate to see the correlations showing that SLG by itself is closer to RC than OBP is by itself.

I want to see them.

Hannibal Lecter
11-21-2008, 07:28 PM
carson and toby, both good points. thats what i was trying to get at. i wont argue anymore, i said what i needed to, and believe that, no matter what some people think, most people, myself included, think that theriot is just fine as a 2 hitter.

Soto>Norris
11-21-2008, 07:41 PM
They'll still choke. They are the N.L. Yankees

Really? Thats like saying Jenna Jameson looks like Rosie O'donnel. Opposite ends of the historical spectrum buddy.

Seamhead
11-21-2008, 07:45 PM
let me ask you, because this was the purpose of the original argument, do you think that theriot batting anywhere in the top 7 spots of a lineup is "just awful", as redwhitenblue does? that was the statement that started it all. do you agree with that statement?

I don't really believe in lineup construction too much, as long as you give the better players the more PAs and some other minor things to mix and match. If you believe he's one the Cubs best 7 hitters, then you shouldn't believe it's awful. He certainly wasn't an awful hitter for a SS last season.

Hannibal Lecter
11-21-2008, 08:01 PM
I don't really believe in lineup construction too much, as long as you give the better players the more PAs and some other minor things to mix and match. If you believe he's one the Cubs best 7 hitters, then you shouldn't believe it's awful. He certainly wasn't an awful hitter for a SS last season.

thats what ive been saying. i am very happy with him at number 2. i was just arguing with redwhitenblue, who believes that theriot is a useless player
really makes me wonder

popblocker167
11-21-2008, 11:40 PM
Honestly, why are the Cubs even still trying? :p

They're really appearing desperate now, signing every good FA they can.

:speechless:No they are not desperate right now. If they were desperate hendry would be acting a lot more recklous right now. also I think the cubs are doing the right stuff right now except for letting wood go:cry:. They are taking a really good approach by not jumping the gun on peavy and taking it nice and slow. And trust me, if they were depsperate they would be doing a lot of nonsense right now.

popblocker167
11-21-2008, 11:44 PM
They'll still choke. They are the N.L. Yankees

how is that? Do they try to get every FA possible and offer rediculous contracts to everyone? no, this issue is not even debateable. There is no way that the cubs are anything like the yankees.

redwhitenblue
11-22-2008, 08:05 AM
thats what ive been saying. i am very happy with him at number 2. i was just arguing with redwhitenblue, who believes that theriot is a useless player
really makes me wonder
Bring up my post where I said useless.



And Seamhead made my point for me. Theriot is not one of the Cubs 7 best hitters.

Lee, Soriano, Ramirez, Soto, Derosa, Johnson and whoever they'll get for RF are each better than Theriot.
I want to see them.
They're not hard to find. When isolated by themselves, different places have different correlations, usually SLG and OBP are very very close and in quite a few of them SLG is closer to RC than OBP when isolated.

Hawkize31
11-22-2008, 08:58 AM
OBP is more valuable than SLG by quite a bit. Here (http://www.pankin.com/sabr34.pdf) is an interesting study that claims OBP is around twice as valuable as SLG.

Here (http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/why_does_17obpslg_make_sense/) is another article that gives OBP 1.7 times the value of SLG.

And plugging in numbers to the Baseball Musings Lineup Analysis, I crated two lineups with every player having an OPS of .900. In the first lineup (http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py?Player0=a&OBA0=.425&Slug0=.475&Player1=b&OBA1=.425&Slug1=.475&Player2=c&OBA2=.425&Slug2=.475&Player3=d&OBA3=.425&Slug3=.475&Player4=e&OBA4=.425&Slug4=.475&Player5=f&OBA5=.425&Slug5=.475&Player6=g&OBA6=.425&Slug6=.475&Player7=h&OBA7=.425&Slug7=.475&Player8=i&OBA8=.425&Slug8=.475&Model=0), every player has an OBP of .425 and an SLG of 475. In the second lineup (http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py?Player0=a&OBA0=.325&Slug0=.575&Player1=b&OBA1=.325&Slug1=.575&Player2=c&OBA2=.325&Slug2=.575&Player3=d&OBA3=.325&Slug3=.575&Player4=e&OBA4=.325&Slug4=.575&Player5=f&OBA5=.325&Slug5=.575&Player6=g&OBA6=.325&Slug6=.575&Player7=h&OBA7=.325&Slug7=.575&Player8=i&OBA8=.325&Slug8=.575&Model=0), every player has an OBP of .325 and an SLG of .575. The first lineup, with .100 more OBP and .100 less SLG than the 2nd lineup, created 6.891 runs/game compared to 6.053 runs/game for the second lineup.

And there is the argument that you don't really need power in front of power hitters. Theriot can get on base in front of Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, who are each pretty good power hitters. You really don't need power out of that spot. Theriot is 2nd in NL shortstops in OBP at .387 last year. Arguing that he is not better than Reed Johnson, who put up a worse OBP while platooning much of the year, is very difficult, and its not true.

The Cubs also led the NL in SLG, with 5 players in the top 40. They are fine with having a good OBP and awful SLG guy at SS.

tobygullion
11-22-2008, 09:07 AM
Ryan Theriot is a better hitter plain and simple than Reed Johnson. Theriot struck out 10 less times (58 to 68) than Johnson in 247 more atbats while walking more than 50 times more. He also got more at-bats due to the fact that he's an everyday player. Johnson will be at best platooning with Fukudome in Center or possibly even Pie so he won't be in the lineup everyday and I'd hate to see the Cubs get into what they've done in the past with switching their lineups every couple of days or so. Slide Theriot in the everyday #2 spot and Johnson and Fukudome can bring up the 8-hole unless something changes in personnel I think that's the way it needs to be done. But hey the Cubs aren't paying me so I really have no idea what they are going to do.

Hawkize31
11-22-2008, 09:25 AM
Ryan Theriot is a better hitter plain and simple than Reed Johnson. Theriot struck out 10 less times (58 to 68) than Johnson in 247 more atbats while walking more than 50 times more. He also got more at-bats due to the fact that he's an everyday player. Johnson will be at best platooning with Fukudome in Center or possibly even Pie so he won't be in the lineup everyday and I'd hate to see the Cubs get into what they've done in the past with switching their lineups every couple of days or so. Slide Theriot in the everyday #2 spot and Johnson and Fukudome can bring up the 8-hole unless something changes in personnel I think that's the way it needs to be done. But hey the Cubs aren't paying me so I really have no idea what they are going to do.

Well, you can bet that no matter what lineup sent out there, Lou Piniella is an idiot for doing it that way. ;)

ST.maarten'stop
11-22-2008, 09:42 AM
According to cubs.com/mlblogs.com (http://hotstove.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/11/cubs_not_done_pitchingwise.html), the Chicago Cubs are interested in signin Furcal, who wants somewhere between a 3-4 year deal. They apparently are not done with trying to acquire Jake Peavy either.
If both these do in fact happen, the Cubs will be quite unstoppable, until the playoffs. haha. But either way, I think this is what the roation/ lineup should look like if both deals go down, what do you think?

Rotation:

Peavy
Zambrano
Lilly
Harden
Dempster

Lineup:
1.Furcal-SS
2.Theriot-2nd
3.Soriano-LF
4.Ramirez-3B
5.Lee-1ST
6.Soto-C
7.DeRosa-RF
8.Johnson/Fukudome
9.P

Won't work Line uo way tooo right handed, especially in the middle add a middle of order lefty bat and line up is untouchable. Getting a leftyu bat was our main concern last time i checked.

redwhitenblue
11-22-2008, 03:00 PM
OBP is more valuable than SLG by quite a bit. Here (http://www.pankin.com/sabr34.pdf) is an interesting study that claims OBP is around twice as valuable as SLG.

Here (http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/why_does_17obpslg_make_sense/) is another article that gives OBP 1.7 times the value of SLG.

And plugging in numbers to the Baseball Musings Lineup Analysis, I crated two lineups with every player having an OPS of .900. In the first lineup (http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py?Player0=a&OBA0=.425&Slug0=.475&Player1=b&OBA1=.425&Slug1=.475&Player2=c&OBA2=.425&Slug2=.475&Player3=d&OBA3=.425&Slug3=.475&Player4=e&OBA4=.425&Slug4=.475&Player5=f&OBA5=.425&Slug5=.475&Player6=g&OBA6=.425&Slug6=.475&Player7=h&OBA7=.425&Slug7=.475&Player8=i&OBA8=.425&Slug8=.475&Model=0), every player has an OBP of .425 and an SLG of 475. In the second lineup (http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py?Player0=a&OBA0=.325&Slug0=.575&Player1=b&OBA1=.325&Slug1=.575&Player2=c&OBA2=.325&Slug2=.575&Player3=d&OBA3=.325&Slug3=.575&Player4=e&OBA4=.325&Slug4=.575&Player5=f&OBA5=.325&Slug5=.575&Player6=g&OBA6=.325&Slug6=.575&Player7=h&OBA7=.325&Slug7=.575&Player8=i&OBA8=.325&Slug8=.575&Model=0), every player has an OBP of .325 and an SLG of .575. The first lineup, with .100 more OBP and .100 less SLG than the 2nd lineup, created 6.891 runs/game compared to 6.053 runs/game for the second lineup.

And there is the argument that you don't really need power in front of power hitters. Theriot can get on base in front of Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, who are each pretty good power hitters. You really don't need power out of that spot. Theriot is 2nd in NL shortstops in OBP at .387 last year. Arguing that he is not better than Reed Johnson, who put up a worse OBP while platooning much of the year, is very difficult, and its not true.

The Cubs also led the NL in SLG, with 5 players in the top 40. They are fine with having a good OBP and awful SLG guy at SS.
Hawkize, you're better than that, you know how to read. SLG alone and OBP alone. Together it weights OBP more, alone it doesn't. I've said that 10 times already.

And Theriot having no power is part of the reason Lee had so many DP's. You need some power in every spot. Certain hitters don't get a break from it.

Johnson's OBP was fine, not some low number (.358) while his SLG destroyed Theriot (.420-.359

Even by your weird idea that OBP is twice as valuable as SLG, Johnson is well ahead of Theriot, Theriot is .020 points ahead in .OBP (.040 if you want to double it) while Johnson is .060 points ahead in SLG

Not hard, and completely true to say Johnson's a better hitter.

Hannibal Lecter
11-22-2008, 07:38 PM
...im done with this guy

Seamhead
11-23-2008, 06:23 PM
They're not hard to find. When isolated by themselves, different places have different correlations, usually SLG and OBP are very very close and in quite a few of them SLG is closer to RC than OBP when isolated.

I can't find them. Can you find some articles that support your claim? Nearly everything I've ever read in terms of good run estimator metrics support the fact that OBP is more valuable than slugging. Hawkize posted a couple of them there.

Hannibal Lecter
11-23-2008, 08:26 PM
I can't find them. Can you find some articles that support your claim? Nearly everything I've ever read in terms of good run estimator metrics support the fact that OBP is more valuable than slugging. Hawkize posted a couple of them there.

OBP is more important than slugging. redwhitenblue is just trying to find any way he can to make theriot out to be a bad offensive player. i dont get it

1908_Cubs
11-23-2008, 09:50 PM
OBP is more important than slugging. redwhitenblue is just trying to find any way he can to make theriot out to be a bad offensive player. i dont get it

Actually most studies prove that SLG'ing correlates higher to runs scored than just OBP does. You can refuse to get it all you want. It really doesn't make you right. I'll have to find the actual numbers later, I'm actually just taking a quick 5 minute break from studying. Maybe I'll be lucky and RWB will find them for me.

But you're just wrong.

Hawkize31
11-23-2008, 10:36 PM
OBP is more important than slugging. redwhitenblue is just trying to find any way he can to make theriot out to be a bad offensive player. i dont get it

I don't want to single out RWB, since he is one of the more knowledgeable posters here, but there is a phenomenon in general to hate Ryan Theriot, especially in the Cubs forum. There was a time at the end of last season and during the offseason where any praise for Theriot in the Cubs forum would result in being attacked and basically called an idiot by at least 10 posters immediately. Lou Piniella was at one point considered a complete moron for even considering playing Theriot. Many called him the worst player on the 25 man roster. When Theriot got off to a good start, it was of course unsustainable for any length of time. And anyone who knew anything about baseball knew Cedeno (.289 career OBP) was better than Theriot.

Some of that won't go away, even when Theriot put up good OBP numbers over a whole year.

GHGHCP
11-23-2008, 10:52 PM
Actually most studies prove that SLG'ing correlates higher to runs scored than just OBP does. You can refuse to get it all you want. It really doesn't make you right. I'll have to find the actual numbers later, I'm actually just taking a quick 5 minute break from studying. Maybe I'll be lucky and RWB will find them for me.

But you're just wrong.

Link?

Seamhead
11-23-2008, 11:15 PM
Link?

x2.

Seamhead
11-23-2008, 11:21 PM
Just real quick...

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296

http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/2005/08/depodesta-and-ops.html

Basically, a best-fit equation for OPS would be OBP * (any number from like 1.2 to 2 has been used/found to be accurate) + slugging percentages.

I have no idea what those studies that prove the opposite are. Never seen one. Seems like a bunch of hot air to me.

redwhitenblue
11-24-2008, 07:45 AM
Just real quick...

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296

http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/2005/08/depodesta-and-ops.html

Basically, a best-fit equation for OPS would be OBP * (any number from like 1.2 to 2 has been used/found to be accurate) + slugging percentages.

I have no idea what those studies that prove the opposite are. Never seen one. Seems like a bunch of hot air to me.
It's difficult to find things when you jump in conversations without reading and don't even know what you're trying to find.


I've said it in the last 2-3 pages multiple times, I'm not talking about combined OBP and SLG, when combined it's closer when OBP is weighted. What was being discussed was singling out OBP and SLG as completely seperate things. Not related to each other whatsoever. OBP BY ITSELF, does not correlate to RC as well as SLG in many studies.



If you still can't understand what you're trying to find, I can't help you.






As for the discussion, my comp crashed early Sat morning so I don't have much time to look stuff up compared to normal, if it gets up and running soon enough I'll go to town.

bagwell368
11-24-2008, 12:38 PM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/home_MLB.aspx

A's offer Furcal $48M for 4 years according to Furcal.

bagwell368
11-24-2008, 12:47 PM
Here are some basic quotes from this site: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-base_plus_slugging

-- One fault of OPS is that it weighs on-base average and slugging percentage equally, although on-base average correlates better with scoring runs.

-- On-base plus slugging was first popularized in 1984 by John Thorn and Pete Palmer's book, The Hidden Game of Baseball ... Baseball journalist Peter Gammons used and evangelized the statistics, and other writers and broadcasters picked it up. The popularity of OPS gradually spread, and by 2004 it began appearing on Topps baseball cards.[3]

-- OPS+, Adjusted OPS, is a closely related statistic. OPS+ is OPS adjusted for the park and the league in which the player played.

Sabermetrics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabermetrics

-- Sabermetricians frequently call into question traditional measures of baseball skill. For instance, batting average is generally considered by them to be a statistic of limited usefulness because it turns out to be a poor predictor of a team's ability to score runs. [2] A more typical sabermetric reasoning would say that runs win ballgames, and that therefore a good measure of a player's worth is his ability to help his team score more runs than the opposing team. In particular, they tend to emphasize on base percentage.

Exactly!!



Here is the real McCoy site - be prepared to spend a lot of time to check it all out:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?mode=viewstat&stat=118

LeoGetz
11-24-2008, 12:48 PM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/home_MLB.aspx

A's offer Furcal $48M for 4 years according to Furcal.


Furcal added that he's also received an offer from the Mets to play second base and plans to meet with his agent to go over his options. Oakland was thought to be in rebuilding mode while stockpiling young talent, but signing Furcal on the heels of trading for Matt Holliday would signal that the A's believe the AL West is winnable in 2009.

The A's must think if LAA don't land Teixiera, Vlad misses the entire 09 season, & Lackey dies they have s shot to win the west.

ruckus16969
11-24-2008, 12:51 PM
Peavy will be in a Red Sox uniform next year!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL YEAH RIGHT

Tragedy
11-24-2008, 12:54 PM
The A's must think if LAA don't land Teixiera, Vlad misses the entire 09 season, & Lackey dies they have s shot to win the west.
Well, the A's could win the West, if they continue being as competitive in the FA market as they've been so far.

It's not like the Angels will do much upgrading, and they could possibly lose out on Tex. They lose on on Tex, and they're in a bit of trouble.

bagwell368
11-24-2008, 01:45 PM
The A's must think if LAA don't land Teixiera, Vlad misses the entire 09 season, & Lackey dies they have s shot to win the west.

Vlad isn't Vlad anymore in any aspect of the game. They appear to have a great young closer, but losing him as a lights out set up key along with the aging of the rest of the vets means the pen isn't likely to be as good. Anderson has to be replaced, so does Tex - one way or the other. Personally I see the LAA as taking a step back in '09. Some fine kids in the minors, and being able to kiss off Vlad after '09 means in '10 or '11 LAA will be back.

Seamhead
11-24-2008, 05:30 PM
I've said it in the last 2-3 pages multiple times, I'm not talking about combined OBP and SLG, when combined it's closer when OBP is weighted. What was being discussed was singling out OBP and SLG as completely seperate things. Not related to each other whatsoever. OBP BY ITSELF, does not correlate to RC as well as SLG in many studies.

Yes, it might, but that does not make it more important (meaning you shouldn't weigh slugging more than OBP), which kind of makes slugging correlating better to runs scored irrelevant if you're discussing which is more important.

And to answer the dude's question about batting Theriot >7th or not, it simply depends if his true talent is good enough to warrant giving him X amount of PAs, and I do not feel like looking through the Cubs lineup. The other stuff about being able to handle the bat and bunting and all of that -- it doesn't matter much. I don't even consider it.

redwhitenblue
11-24-2008, 06:54 PM
Yes, it might, but that does not make it more important (meaning you shouldn't weigh slugging more than OBP), which kind of makes slugging correlating better to runs scored irrelevant if you're discussing which is more important.

And to answer the dude's question about batting Theriot >7th or not, it simply depends if his true talent is good enough to warrant giving him X amount of PAs, and I do not feel like looking through the Cubs lineup. The other stuff about being able to handle the bat and bunting and all of that -- it doesn't matter much. I don't even consider it.
Did I ever say you should weigh SLG more?

This all stems from Hannibal saying it's okay that Theriot slugs .350 because his only job is to get on base. I followed saying it's every players job to get on base and get multiple bases. And him basically saying, in very general wording, that SLG flat out does not matter.

ruckus16969
11-24-2008, 07:40 PM
Peavy will be in a boston uniform

Seamhead
11-24-2008, 09:32 PM
Did I ever say you should weigh SLG more?

This all stems from Hannibal saying it's okay that Theriot slugs .350 because his only job is to get on base. I followed saying it's every players job to get on base and get multiple bases. And him basically saying, in very general wording, that SLG flat out does not matter.

Alright...:thumbs:up: