I'd say the offense. Matsui and Giambi broke out of their slumps while the top 4 are keeping their play going. Wang had also been a good anchor for their depleted staff, but now that he's gone, that offense will probably have to shoulder even more of the burden. That's why trading Sheffield for Burnett would have been a stupid idea; you take away one of the big bats and at the same time would weaken their RF.

 

They've got a tough road ahead with three at Texas followed by four in Anaheim. They better win the games Johnson and Mussina start, because they'll have a tough time winning the others.

Tell me why the Cubs have this inability to do anything right for an extended period of time. Why do terrible or average teams such a challenge. Is it because the Cubs are simply an average team or what? Why do they have a knack for getting guys at third with less than two outs and can't score them. The talent seems to be there all around, but this team is maddening most of the time. //end frustration

- Why do so many sports writers continue to hate on the A's? Doesn't seem to matter what they do, the writers play everything they do off as luck or not being legit. The argument usually is they've never won a WS under the current Moneyball philosophy. But the Cards haven't won a WS with the current core of players, and we all know about the White Sox. But they're still both treated as bigger threats to win it all than the A's.

 

- Are Matt Murton and Ronny Cedeno capable of being starters on a contending team? They show promise, but being unfamiliar with their minor league careers, I was just wondering how they stack up in relations to other young players with promise.

Will the White Sox fovever be in the shadow of the Cubs in baseball?

- Why do so many sports writers continue to hate on the A's? Doesn't seem to matter what they do, the writers play everything they do off as luck or not being legit. The argument usually is they've never won a WS under the current Moneyball philosophy. But the Cards haven't won a WS with the current core of players, and we all know about the White Sox. But they're still both treated as bigger threats to win it all than the A's.

Of course they're bigger threats, they have more wins. I haven't seen the Moneyball hate in full force like in the past. With the decline of the Red Sox and Yankees, I think they can make a run this offseason.

 

Are Matt Murton and Ronny Cedeno capable of being starters on a contending team? They show promise, but being unfamiliar with their minor league careers, I was just wondering how they stack up in relations to other young players with promise.

Cedeno finally posted a half-decent batting average last year. He featured poor plate discipline and few secondary hitting skills. He earned a promotion thanks to a hot start in Iowa, but I am not certain he is for real. His limited at bats in Chicago don't seem to indicate anything special. I don't see Cedeno as a starter in the bigs. Perhaps a utility infielder.

 

Murton's a legitimate hitting prospect, but I am not sure that he is quite ready yet. He had not reached AA before this season. Still, I think his presence as much as anything made Jason Dubois expendable, when you think about it. I don't believe he's ever played center field.

 

I think the Cubs should recall Corey Patterson, warts and all. Sure, he's an OBP hole, but he's the best center fielder this team has, and at least he's a power/speed threat. Especially since Jason Hairston is out.

 

Will the White Sox fovever be in the shadow of the Cubs in baseball?

Wasn't there a question about soccer?

 

The White Sox have outdrawn the Cubs, in the early 80s and during much of the 1950s and 60s. It is only recently that the Cubs truly established themselves as Chicago's favorite team. Sportswriters forget how often these things shift. The Mets outdrew the Yankees at some points. No team in a city is truly higher than another.

 

The problem is that the White Sox have never given their fans a run of success. Since throwing the World Series, the Sox have made four postseason appearances, winning a league championship and three division titles, but they have not won a single postseason series since 1917. At least the Cubs won the ALDS last year.

If the Yankees make the playoffs, can you make a case for Giambi as the league's MVP? If not, how close is he for a decent argument?

At least the Cubs won the ALDS last year.

I didn't know the Cubs jumped to the American League....

Nor did they win it last year. It was 2003. OMG, AL'S CRACKING UNDER THA PRESSURE!

You're both banned.

 

If the Yankees make the playoffs, can you make a case for Giambi as the league's MVP? If not, how close is he for a decent argument?

The good is that he leads the league in OPS. The bad is that he's done it in the minimum amount of plate appearances. As of July 31st, Giambi rated 25th in win shares.

 

Right now he has no shot at it. He does not rank in the top ten of any triple crown categories, and he adds nothing to his argument with defense or baserunning. I am happy Giambi has found himself, but he's not the MVP.

how about making him pee in a cup

The return!

 

- ESPN, in their never-ending coverage of Barry Bonds, are dwelling on his slow start and lack of homeruns. A regression is/was expected, but don't you think they're overreacting a bit this early in the season?

 

- The Mets have gotten off to a 7-1 start, giving those who dubbed them the NL East champs before the season even started, something to work with. The figure seems suspect since they've played arguably two of the worst teams in the NL. What kind of regression do you expect to see from the boys over at Shea?

 

- How serious are the Detroit Tigers?

 

- Derrek Lee and David Ortiz got inked to huge deals last week. Which do you expect to be the more beneficial of the two?

ESPN, in their never-ending coverage of Barry Bonds, are dwelling on his slow start and lack of homeruns. A regression is/was expected, but don't you think they're overreacting a bit this early in the season?

I think there's some merit to it. There's a passage in Moneyball that quotes David Justice saying "that used to be gone." Bonds may not be able to hold up physically, and he's detrimental to the defense when he plays. We could see the beginning of the end here, but I might be wrong.

 

- The Mets have gotten off to a 7-1 start, giving those who dubbed them the NL East champs before the season even started, something to work with. The figure seems suspect since they've played arguably two of the worst teams in the NL. What kind of regression do you expect to see from the boys over at Shea?

 

- How serious are the Detroit Tigers?

Both teams could win their respective divisions, though the Tigers are a bigger longshot. These are the situations where you sit and enjoy the season, and see how things turn out.

 

- Derrek Lee and David Ortiz got inked to huge deals last week. Which do you expect to be the more beneficial of the two?

Derrek Lee. Hitters of Ortiz's girth tend not to age as well. Mo Vaughn ceased being a productive player by 35, and Boog Powell was done at 34.

Service time being equal, which pitcher would you rather have, Jeremy Bonderman or Rich Harden?

- Derrek Lee and David Ortiz got inked to huge deals last week. Which do you expect to be the more beneficial of the two?

Derrek Lee. Hitters of Ortiz's girth tend not to age as well. Mo Vaughn ceased being a productive player by 35, and Boog Powell was done at 34.

I think comparing Ortiz with Vaughn is a poor choice. For one thing, Vaughn played the majority of his games in the field and only DHed a small percentage of games which would definitely cause more wear and tear on the body than a guy who DHs 95% of the time. Secondly, I would think Ortiz takes care of his body a bit better than Vaughn did over the course of his career (Ortiz is big, but not FAT like Vaughn was in his last years in Boston, NY and Anaheim).

Service time being equal, which pitcher would you rather have, Jeremy Bonderman or Rich Harden?

Rich Harden. He's already produced two seasons with an ERA under four. Bonderman's a great young talent though.

- Derrek Lee and David Ortiz got inked to huge deals last week. Which do you expect to be the more beneficial of the two?

Derrek Lee. Hitters of Ortiz's girth tend not to age as well. Mo Vaughn ceased being a productive player by 35, and Boog Powell was done at 34.

I think comparing Ortiz with Vaughn is a poor choice. For one thing, Vaughn played the majority of his games in the field and only DHed a small percentage of games which would definitely cause more wear and tear on the body than a guy who DHs 95% of the time. Secondly, I would think Ortiz takes care of his body a bit better than Vaughn did over the course of his career (Ortiz is big, but not FAT like Vaughn was in his last years in Boston, NY and Anaheim).

Red Sox fans seem to be in denial over this whole thing. David Ortiz is a fat player with old player skills. These type of players do not age well. Of all the fat players I can think of, none lasted into their late 30s. Mo Vaughn isn't a direct comparison, but an object lesson for what can happen. People forget that Vaughn was every bit the hitter Ortiz was at his age. There will come a time when Ortiz can't clear the outfield wall with ease, and what does he have then?

A lovable nickname?

Here's an article from Baseball Prospectus comparing the Lee and Ortiz contracts. This is a free article on their site, so I don't think there should be any issue with posting it.

 

-----------------

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....?articleid=4963

 

It was a day for spending money Monday, as two sluggers signed lucrative contract extensions to stay with their current teams.

 

The deals for Derrek Lee and David Ortiz are similar in a number of ways. Both involve local heroes who play on the left end of the defensive spectrum, and who are coming off monster seasons. Both players are 30 years old, and in what we would consider the back end of their primes.

 

It?s where the players differ, though, that I think is most interesting, and that provides a basis for analyzing the two extensions.

 

First, we?ll look at Lee, whose deal runs through 2010 at an average salary of $13 million a year (the breakdown is unavailable as I write this). He was the best player in the National League last season, his second with the Cubs following a trade from the Marlins in November of 2003. In addition to being a very good hitter with power and a decent walk rate, Lee is one of the better defensive first basemen in the game, athletic and rangy, with a glove that has been worth two to three wins above replacment a season. In addition, he has good speed, although he is slowing as he ages. He?s as complete a player as a 30-year-old first baseman can reasonably be.

 

Lee?s speed and athleticism are reflected in his PECOTA projection. While Nate Silver?s system?which, I should note, pegged Lee?s continued improvement the past two seasons, if not the extent of his 2005?projects a slow decline for Lee, it does see him retaining a good deal of his value over the next three years.

 

Year WARP MORP Salary Diff

2006 6.8 $13.68 $13.0 $0.68

2007 6.0 $11.68 $13.0 -$1.32

2008 5.7 $11.23 $13.0 -$1.77

2009 4.6 $8.28 $13.0 -$4.72

2010 3.8 $6.35 $13.0 -$6.65

 

Total 27.0 $51.22 $65.0 -$13.78

 

All dollar figures in millions

 

MORP: Marginal Value Over Replacement Player

 

Note that the MORP figure is based on a standard formula. If we concede that marginal wins mean more to a team on the brink of the playoffs?a conclusion reached in Baseball Between the Numbers?and project the Cubs to be a contending team for at least part of the next five seasons, the $51 million that Lee?s performance is projected to ?earn? rises, because the wins he produces have additional monetary value. You can further argue that PECOTA?s regression approach may be leading to conservative projections for Lee, especially in 2009 and 2010. In truth, it?s very hard to project performance that far out; the Cubs are rolling the dice a bit on Lee?s aging process, and the back end of this deal may not look very good.

 

Even with that falloff projected in 2009 and 2010, though, this isn?t a terrible deal for the Cubs. Granted, Lee is being paid for his performance in his career year, and he?s unlikely to have that kind of season again. (His batting average will almost certainly drop this season, as it did in the second half of 2005. The rest of his game, however, is still very good.) However, if Lee plays at his 2003-2004 level, and is a six- or seven-win player through 2008, he?ll be earning his money for a Cubs team that should be in the playoff hunt, if not necessarily a favorite, through that year.

 

Lee is a popular player in Chicago, a factor that no doubt influenced the Cubs in these negotiations. So you can imagine the pressure the Red Sox felt to get David Ortiz, who hasn?t paid for his own meal in Boston in two years, signed past 2007. He?s an icon in this city, famed for his role in the 2004 championship season and for a laundry list of key hits during his time with the Sox. Whether he really is ?The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox? doesn?t matter; what matters is that the city thinks he is.

 

While Ortiz has icon status going for him, he lacks many of Lee?s markers. He?s barely even a first baseman at this point, having played just 10 games and 78 innings in the field last year, and he has no speed at all. All of his value comes with a bat in his hand, and that?s what raises some red flags.

 

Keith Woolner put together a list of players who were primarily DHs at 28 and 29 years of age. Twenty-four players have met the criteria of playing in at least 75 games at those ages with at least 75% of those appearances coming at DH. The last three columns are games played at 30 and older, WARP produced at 30 and older, and age when they last played (?A? indicates ?Active?). All stats through 2005.

 

YEAR Name Age G30+ WARP30+ Last Played

 

1973 Ollie Brown 29 299 4.6 33

1976 Carlos May 28 0 0.0 29

1977 Craig Kusick 28 48 0.4 30

1977 Carlos May 29 0 0.0 29

1980 Mitchell Page 28 104 0.9 32

1980 Otto Velez 29 118 1.4 32

1982 Roy Howell 28 68 0.2 30

1982 Mike Ivie 29 12 0.1 30

1984 Willie Aikens 29 12 0.0 30

1984 Ken Phelps 29 576 13.5 35

1986 Ron Kittle 28 248 5.3 33

1987 Harold Baines 28 1548 39.4 42

1988 Harold Baines 29 1548 39.4 42

1989 Larry Sheets 29 142 1.1 33

1994 Jose Canseco 29 744 19.6 36

1995 Greg Vaughn 29 930 31.7 37

1997 Bob Hamelin 29 109 -0.1 30

1997 Reggie Jefferson 28 83 0.4 30

1998 Tim Salmon 29 739 25.4 37A

2003 Erubiel Durazo 29 183 4.8 31A

2004 Brad Fullmer 29 0 0.0 29

2005 Travis Hafner 28 0 0.0 29A

 

First off, you can see how unusual Ortiz?s career path has been. Just two other players, Carlos May and Harold Baines, were full-time DHs by the time they were 28 years old. The other thing that jumps out is that Ortiz is almost certainly the best hitter on this list, and that should be a marker in his favor.

 

But 29-year-olds aren?t full-time DHs by accident. Let?s not forget that the Red Sox have played some very mediocre first basemen over the last two seasons, and on into this one, while keeping Papi away from the bag. They endure Manny Ramirez?s interpretations of defense rather than using him at DH. Clearly, Ortiz is a DH because that?s where the Sox feel he?s best used. This is a considerable indictment of his ability as a first baseman.

 

The list above is largely a list of players who were so one-dimensional in their late 20s that they had nothing left to offer by their early 30s. The exceptions don?t seem to have a lot in common with Ortiz: Baines was betrayed by his knees, but was an otherwise in-shape player who was forced to DH solely because of those knees. Greg Vaughn had a bum shoulder that kept him from playing the field at 29, but he went back to the outfield in 1996 and was an above-average cornerman from 1996 through 1999. Tim Salmon, too, was a regular outfielder for years after his season at DH.

 

Ortiz isn?t playing out of position at DH, waiting for an injury to heal. He has no more defensive value to give. He is a big guy with something of a gut, and it?s hard to not look at him sometimes and see another heavy-set left-handed slugger who was very popular in Boston. In fact, Mo Vaughn shows up as the #9 comp on Ortiz?s PECOTA card, a thought that should frighten Sox fans to their very core. On the other hand, Ortiz is more comparable to hitters like Fred McGriff and Willie McCovey, hitters who retained their stroke deep into into their thirties.

 

So what to conclude? Honestly, I was a lot less worried about this contract before I saw the list above. Ortiz is certainly better than most of the players above, but there seems to be a powerful force that drives twentysomething DHs out of the game quickly. The inability to play a position on the field seems to be a leading indicator of a rapid, early decline.

 

Here?s what PECOTA thinks:

 

Year WARP MORP Salary Diff

2006 5.3 $8.85 $6.5 $2.35

2007 5.6 $10.33 $12.5 -$2.17

2008 4.4 $7.35 $12.5 -$5.15

2009 3.6 $5.65 $12.5 -$6.85

2010 2.8 $4.03 $12.5 -$8.47

 

Total 27.0 $36.21 $56.5 -$20.29

 

All dollar figures in millions

 

MORP: Marginal Value Over Replacement Player

 

Remember, the Sox already had Ortiz signed through 2007, his age-31 season, for a bargain $8.4 million. While the new deal wipes out that option year, financially it means they?re paying an additional $38 million for his ages 32 through 34 seasons. They, too, get more from the marginal wins that Ortiz produces, but he?s just not likely to retain his value as well as Derrek Lee will.

 

With both these signings, there are off-field concerns that can be, and have been, cited. As I mentioned, teams with playoff aspirations can overpay from marginal wins because those wins will bring on more revenue, assuming they lead to playoff appearances. Playoff appearances, success and championships have a powerful effect on future revenues, and are worth paying extra for.

 

On the other hand, the Cubs and Red Sox are two teams for whom demand has become nearly inelastic. The idea that the teams would have taken a hit had they not signed their popular stars seems silly to me. Both teams could probably start selling tickets that require holders to sit on the laps of their current customers and find a market. Both play in parks that, while aging, remain destination sites for fans nationwide, and both are co-owned in concert with their primary broadcast outlets, allowing them to benefit directly from the interest in their teams.

 

While it?s a popular media talking point, I don?t see any way that the Cubs or the Red Sox would have taken more than a very small short-term hit by allowing their stars to test the market. It?s particularly problematic in the Sox?s case, with Ortiz signed through the end of 2007.

 

The difference between these two signings is the difference between being a good defensive first baseman and being a DH. It?s also the difference between a contract extension that makes good sense and one that s likely to be problematic. The Cubs made a fairly good deal for themselves, while the Red Sox did not.

Here's one for you. Can you explain Bronson Arroyo's sudden improvement this season. Is it just the benefit of being in a new league, a fluke or is he realizing his potential?

Here's one for you.  Can you explain Bronson Arroyo's sudden improvement this season.  Is it just the benefit of being in a new league, a fluke or is he realizing his potential?

I would say 2/3rds fluke, 1/3rd new league.

What happened to Andy Petitte?

Honestly, I don't know. I haven't seen him pitch at all this year. I will say that 2005 was a fluke.

What's your opinion of Josh Willingham?

Hey Al, who do you think will have the biggest impact in terms of helping their team, rookie wise, down the stretch?

What are your feelings on Barry Bonds, him passing Ruth's 714, him still going after Aaron's 755 and his apparent personality turnaround in the media?

 

What about the pace Pujols was on before getting injured?