Michael Young, the fallacy of organizational strength, and how the Tribune is cheating US
Well, THAT woke all you cocksticks up!!
I can't see two feet in front of me right now, and that isn't a good thing. It is blowing snow, not jagermeister, that is occluding my vision. But I can see well enough to read all the flame-age from my suggestion that maybe we go after the suddenly disgruntled Michael Young, the sure-enough-voted AL Gold Glove Shortstop for 2008.
And yes, I am being somewhat facetious when I throw up his gilded mitt trophy to you all, for it is a pretty universal sentiment that he isn't the best defensive shortstop in the AL. But he is a stud hoss that would improve our team over what we have. I am always surprised at the lengths that your fertile minds will go to refute my suggestion. Forthwith, I am going to entirely concede to a few of you; continue mild gentlemanly discourse with several others, and totally take the last few of you and kick your ass.
Firstly, though, to the "ajwalsh"es of the world - who quash the Young concept because we should be devoting all any all resources to the headlong pursuit of one Jake Peavy of the Tijuana Monks. I have a hard time arguing with you...because I totally agree with you!!! If I had my druthers, I would get Peavy, if the choice was him or Young. But "Chasing Peavy" is already almost a longer movie than its prequel, "Chasing Brian Roberts", and if there be any more news on this front, the Peavy-O-Meter will rear its gaudy head again.
To the Colins of the world who cite Young's hefty contract and note that his WAR and his VORP and all that other shit is only marginally better than our incumbent stringbean, I gently remind you all that while numbers can paint a reasonable facsimilie of real life, I dare say that 99% of the so-called "experts" of baseball would take Young before Theriot if they were picking sides, and if the improvement is only an incremental one, if it might only mean ONE extra win this year, count me in, gatdammit!! I don't care how much he makes - that isn't my problem, and it shouldn't be yours, either. The Cubs print money in their 95 year old stadium/museum/shrine/saloon, and for reasons I will expound on in a minute, as a Chicago Cubs fan, you should never EVER ever have to worry about a player's salary.
You pay $48 for the lease of an 18-inch-wide portion of plankboard in the bleachers, and over $7 for a pint of domestic beer that they purchased for about 60 cents. Your team has a nearly 7% market share of all MLB-licensed products purchased, which if you divide 100 by 30, represents more than their share. This is a 7% slice of a $3.1 BILLION pie! Meanwhile, our payroll continues to lag behind the New York teams, the LA teams, the Red Sox, the Tigers, until recently the Mariners, and, for God's sake, the dick-foresaken Blue Island Trailer Court White Sox!!!
I absolutely cannot accept the validity whatsoever of any cost-related moves the Cubs make. I cannot fathom the need for them to trade DeRosa (or even Marquis!) in order to sign Milton Bradley. The Cubs are THIRD in revenues, behind the Yanks and Sawx, and have been for a decade!! As a fan, and the provider of that lofty ranking, you should DEMAND that in turn, the team devote the similar level of committment and investment in their product.
After the Yanks, the Tigers, Mets, and Sawx are all spending $140 MM on their players. We are spending $20MM LESS! This is wrong, simply unacceptable, and considering how close we came last year...just lets put it this way. The simplest way I can think of this: 20 million would have bought you the services of Manny Ramirez last year. What if WE had him in the NLDS instead of the Dodgers? It would have bought us the services of CC Sabathia this winter (less a Marquis or so).
We didn't hear a peep about our pursuit of Sabathia, because there was none!!! We deserve Sabathia! Instead, we have to dick around with John Moores, who for a guy with a crap hand and no chips in front of him, sits there like a fatass and wonders whether or not he wants 7 or 8 of our prospects for his guy, who he can't afford to pay anyway, because he has to write a big check up front for his bitch ex-wife's botox injections for perpetuity!
This is why, statheads, I cannot accept any arguments about "Incremental value" for ballplayers. Is Young's contract excessive for his value? You bet!! No argument there! But is he better than Theriot, head-to-head? He is, and that should be the ONLY thing we Cub fans have to worry about. This ain't Milwaukee, or Washington, or Colorado, or Pittsburgh. This is Downtown Midwest. We can swing it.
Which leads me to what really really gets me mad around here...you weenies who keep talking about "roster depth" and "keeping our prospects". Really? Just WHAT in suck's name are you waiting for?
We are fans of the Chicago Cubs, we are a HAVE!! We are NOT a HAVE NOT!!
As a fan of the Cubs (especially one who is entering his 40th year of fandom) all we have to worry about is 2009!
"Oh, that's wrong, we have to build for the future!!"
SAYS WHO? That's NOT how it works anymore. Yes, yes, I see the Brewers and their little homegrown boys. Big whoop...what are they gonna do, now that CC is gone? Fifth place, baybee! Maybe 50, 40, even 20 years ago, building from the farm was the blueprint of success. It doesn't work that way anymore. Tha game has changed.
Proof? Go out to Baseball Reference, bring up the last nine Ring Winners, look at the top 25 guys (12 pitchers, 13 hitters) and count how many of them came up initially with THAT particular team.
The 2008 Phillies had 40% of their top 25 players make their initial MLB appearence with them. Not bad...a great advertisement for the "farm system" approach. Ah...hold on there. The 2007 Sawx only had 28%. The 2006 Deadbirds...32% The 2005 PaleHose? 32%. 2004 Sawx had 12 freakin percent - that's 4 guys!!
2003 Marlins...40%!! Bet you thought it was more...2002 Angels - and here's the shocker - 60%!! 2001 Dbags - 28% Then you get to the Yankee Dynasty, and I was figuring single digits here, but no...28% again.
Oh, BTW: the 2008 Cubs? Wood, Marmol, Wuertz, Marshall, Gallagher, Zambrano, Soto, Theriot, Fukudome, Fontenot, Cedeno. Eleven. 44%. That's not counting Pie and Hofpauir - and Rich Hill (guh!)
Point is, these days you only need 7 or 8 guys that go "through the system". Teams are expected to trade and buy their way to the pennant. So if I sit here and write that we ought to offer a particular package for Jake Peavy or Brian Roberts or Michael Young, and you get all in a snit over losing spare parts like Fontenot or Marshall or Pie or Hofpauir or Kevin Hart or, God forbid, Josh Vitters or Tyler Colvin (or Angel Guzman???) If we lived in Kansas City, it would be different. But if we can send SEVERAL of these guys, who are NOT going to help us win in 2009, for a guy like Peavy who would serve as the leader, stopper and stabilizing force for our PRESENT pitching staff, based on what I am calling "the New MLB Model", it is stupid not to.
Once again, if we enter this season WITHOUT Peavy, Roberts, and/or Young, and WITH all the spare parts we currently have now, then this off-season is a failure. Think of it this way, once more - YOU, the fan, has made this team the third-highest-revenue team. We can afford one more Superstar without even blinking!!YOU deserve the third highest payroll, and WE still have $20MM to go before we get there.
Don't settle for less than you deserve.
Cubs Payroll Collection!
If the Cubs are willing to let this talent go to another team due to the lack of money, I would be willing like I'm sure every cubs fan would be, to donate $1 to the effort of signing a Young,Peavy,Roberts or any other stud player that would help us win the series! Who's with me?
If by donating $1, you mean
If by donating $1, you mean buying one more Old Style than you would otherwise next time you're at Wrigley, then yes, that is an awesome idea.
Love it. Great post. I am
Love it. Great post.
I am both an "ajwalsh" (actually, THE ajwalsh) and a member of the Colin camp. So it looks like we both agree, and disagree.
You characterized my stance correctly in terms of how I feel about 2009. I think we should make whatever moves we can to improve this team, right now.
Having said that, Young is not an improvement over The Big RT. Case in point:
750, 760, 680
Those are Young's OPSes over the past three years Away from Texas Stadium. His offense... just isn't good. Maybe the Gold Glove is worth something, and he's a bit of a defensive upgrade (even though the numbers say he isn't)? Well then, OK, if you think the Cubs should have enough money to be able to spend $16MM over the next five years on a slight defensive upgrade at shortstop, guaranteeing a spot in the everyday lineup to an "eh" bat over the next five seasons (because his value's not going to get any better), then fine. I don't think anyone can argue that.
I wish you had expanded on your stance on Ben Sheets, though, because you seemed pretty opposed to it in the Shout Box.
Let me get this straight, Rob: you'd rather pay $16MM to Michael Young for each of the next five years, than $12MM to Ben Sheets, for each of the next two?
Stop yelling
Dude, you floated a terrible idea like it was a good one and got throttled for it. Deal with it.
Also, did you really call Michael Young a "stud hoss?"
I don't why you contend so much that Michael Young is better than Ryan Theriot. Maybe this would be a wonderful opportunity for you to express what makes Michael Young an improvement over Ryan Theriot. I would assume that even if you hate facts and logic, you must have some legitimate set of reasons why you feel the way you do.
I'm hopeful that you'll say something other than you believe lots of 'baseball people' like Michael Young more than Theriot like you've surveyed them.
I must say, there's something very Tom Smykowsky-ish about your posts. "Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?"
I look forward to your reply.
You know who thinks Theriot's better than Young?
Cub fans, and Cub fans only.
It's debatable as to HOW much better Young is, and I would float out the argument that IF the Cubs can afford a superior shortstop, and IF they are going to in fact upgrade at SS at a tremendous expense, then they should hold their cards for just a little longer and try to find a better guy for the money in July or next winter.
But I get what Rob's saying. When your team is as rich as ours is, the $$ should be the last concern. The Cubs should be able to get Young, AND Peavy, and anybody else they want if they think it improves the team enough to win a World Series.
But, yeah, sorry... Theriot's not the superior shortstop.
OK
Then I'm sure you should be able to tell me what makes Michael Young an upgrade over Ryan Theriot. Seems like a simple task for you to feel so confident in your point.
I'm not asking for a dissertation, just something... anything... other than "because," or "lots of 'people' agree with me."
How about because Theriot's
How about because Theriot's got a career slugging percentage of .369 - including 7 homeruns in 1,264 at bats - while benefiting from a career year that he will be hard-pressed to duplicate, while Young had an off-year offensively and still managed to hit 11 more homeruns and 15 more doubles?
How about because Theriot is at this point a one-year success story while Young is a career .300 hitter over the span of parts of 9 seasons?
Take off the Cubbie Fan Blinders here ... nobody is saying that Young is worth his ridiculous contract, but pound-for-pound Young would have to fall off the planet offensively for Theriot to be seen by anybody but Cub fans as being offensively superior.
This kind of discussion is the adult version of hoarding Cub player baseball cards as a kid ... you can have a box full and you'll still be collecting cards of players who never won anything while wearing the Big Red C.
selective stats
Kurt - all due respect.
Wait wait wait... Theriot is supposed to be our power hitter now? c'mon. That's like saying Ramirez should be cut because he can't throw a curve ball.
Young is a .300 hitter over 9 seasons, sure. That's a useless, loaded stat and you know it. Michael Young has shown no plate discipline in his career and hits terribly away from Texas. He's a .280/.323/.404 hitter away from the bandbox. Those are good neifi perez on uppers numbers.
You want to cherry pick stats? Ok: Jason Marquis is 79-70 for his career, while Matt Cain is 30-43.
When you take into account contract and most importantly (to me) OBP -- because that's his strong suit -- give me Theriot. Sure his defense is below average, but he doesn't make outs and scores runs.
I don't care who is wearing the Big Red C. I just want to win.
Before you respond, please take a look at the curious cases of
Chan Ho Park - Splits: Dodgers Pitching (home vs away) vs Texas Pitching.
ceepea - could you quote
ceepea - could you quote where I said anything about how "Theriot is supposed to be our power hitter?"
Young's career OBP is .346 - hardly something to sneer at - which falls in at "respectable" for a leadoff hitter these days.
The point of his career average being high basically represents that, unlike Theriot, he's done it consistently for more than one season. Until Theriot duplicates last year's numbers two or three more times, they're a fluke.
Speaking of flukes, pretty much every player on every team - with the exception of the occassional fluke - puts up better numbers at home than on the road. That's why most teams have better winning records at home rather than on the road. Ryan Theriot over the span of his career is a .276/.367/.351 hitter on the road. Not really a big deal.
Lastly, I'd have to look it up when I get home, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that with duplicate pitching rotations, a team of 8 Michael Youngs would win more games than a team of 8 Ryan Theriots. You can only score - and drive in - so many runs when your best offensive ability is to slap singles.
Arguing all of this detracts from the following, so let me say it clearly because I don't want to get painted into a corner here ...
1. The Cubs are already a good offensive team
2. They should have the cash to upgrade as they please
3. Michael Young would be an improvement on Ryan Theriot
4. There may be better shortstops available than Young before October of 2009
5. Because they are already offensively solid, the Cubs should hold onto Theriot - even if Young is available for next-to-nothing - despite Young's offensive superiority because he wouldn't represent *enough* of an offensive upgrade to make it worth while.
'kay?
slight problems...
Young's OBP is very average driven -- When his average is up, his OBP is up. That is hard to maintain because averages will always be in flux -- especially as one gets older. You can best see this when you look at another great Cub like Corey Patterson. When his average gets near .300, his OBP rises to 330. However, it's hard to maintain a .300 BA. Remember the old adage about batting .300 vs batting .250 in 500 AB? It's 25 more hits over a span of 6 months. Think of the amount of luck (flares, snorts, wind, sun, bad defensive pos, etc) and you can see how BA is not a reliable stat. So give me a player with a higher walk percentage (thus a higher OBP) because he's CONTROLLING his fate (and future fate) and ultimately making less outs.
In a nutshell, Theriot may not hit close to .300 again next year -- that's a given. But his walks and OBP compared to his average should not change either. So even if he hits .276, he'll still have an OBP close to .370.
Finally, yes, hitters do perform better at home than on the road. However, such a steep drop like the one seen from Michael Young when comparing home/away is a cause for major concern. That is why I wanted you to look at Chan Ho Park from 2001. He had a low 2 ERA at Dodger stadium compared with an almost 5 ERA away. When splits get this large (such as the case with Michael Young) a red flag should be raised -- that's all I was saying. In Chan Ho's case, Texas signed him the next year for big money and it blew up in their face.
I really enjoy arguing with you in a gentlemanly sort of way. Good show.
It doesn't matter if his OBP
It doesn't matter if his OBP is more average driven (btw - he walked something like 55 times in '08, hardly Patterson-like) - it's still good, he still outslugs Theriot, he's better defensively than Theriot even if the GG is a popularity contest, and rather than just admit it you're making excuses.
P.S. - Theriot's AVG is 30 points higher at home compared with on the road, and while his OBP is comparable (better on the road in fact) his slugging percentage is more than 60 points higher at home than on the road, and his OPS is 55 points better at home compared with on the road. Meanwhile, on the road Young's OPS and slugging percentages are comparable with Theriot's HOME numbers.
Stop making excuses. You like Ryan Theriot. Theriot's a Cub. We get it already.
please don't go there.
Please don't diminish opposing points of few by deriding the poster with "Stop making excuses. You like Ryan Theriot. Theriot's a Cub. We get it already." That reflects more on your arrogance and insecurity in a discussion than my own points.
With that said, I think you are missing the point of my argument. I have accepted Theriot for his given role: He will be a solid OBP for the Cubs. Yeah, he might not hit many HRs, but damnit, he makes less outs then the average player. So let's stop talking about slugging and OPS and home/road splits and just agree on one principle:
Young will hit 10 (or so) more HRs and more doubles for 10mil / Theriot will get on base more and make less outs for under 1mil.
You decide which is more valuable.
If it were me, since we have only 27 outs a game to play with and we play millions of dollars to others to hit HRs, give me Theriot. Leave the 3-Run HR with Fuku on 2nd (walk) and Theriot on first (slap single) to Ramirez.
Ok?
So be a little more specific
So be a little more specific here. I said that, pound for pound, Young was a better shortstop. The response by you was to prove it. I did, to which you responded "oh yeah, well Theriot isn't supposed to be an offensive producer anyway, he's just supposed to get on base, and he does that better than Young!"
You prove your point by mis-characterizing Young as being "Corey Patterson-like" and by ignoring the heavy evidence that - as I said - Young is a better shortstop than Ryan Theriot.
Now, you say "Young will hit 10 (or so) more HRs and more doubles" - I guess you're acknowledging that he's a better offensive player? - "for 10mil / Theriot will get on base more and make less outs for under 1mil. You decide which is more valuable."
Do me a favor and go, read my comments, and report back on what I've "decided" in terms of "which is more valuable."
Although I do enjoy this
Although I do enjoy this line of logic.
Kurt: Young's a better hitter
Goat Reader: Prove it!
Kurt: He's got good career numbers, plus he hits way more doubles and homeruns even in an "off season"
Goat Reader 2: Well, since when does Theriot have to be a power hitter anyway?!
Kurt: ...uh...
"This aggression (on logic) will not stand, man"
So that's it, huh? Michael Young is an upgrade over Ryan Theriot because he had 3 excellent offensive seasons in 04 - 06? I guess you were pining for the Cubs to sign Ken Griffey Jr so they could get their hands on all those 600 HRs. 1st ballot HOFer, gotta have 'em.
This link is a comparison of Theriot to Young by both age and season.
I realize that you are but a caveman, and my ways scare and confuse you, but it really should strike you when you see that link how hard it is to defensibly say you're sure Young is an upgrade over Theriot. Both are genuinely average MLBers at this point and Theriot simply had a better 2008. Both are average defenders and one is just a lot cheaper and a little younger. To ignore the obvious here is pretty much like saying you're helping OJ hunt for Nicole Brown Simpson's real killer.
I don't get why I'm hoarding baseball cards, and why whether or not a player has a WS ring matters to whether or not you sign them.... but in your analogy, it's logic as clever as yours that keeps Ron Santo on the outside looking in... isn't it, Joe Morgan. I guess to build on your point, are you going to tell me that Michael Young has 'won' something because of those ASG heroics, or did the Michael Young led Rangers make it to the WS in some parallel universe?
Keep the analysis coming. I think you're doing a great job.
thank you!
Thank you China Brown! I thought I was the only one here carrying water for unbiased, reasonable, analytical approaches to Young/Theriot.
Sabermatics unite!
Out of the basement and into the streets! Out of the basement and into the streets!
That's fantastic - you
That's fantastic - you compared a handful of measurement tools and showed us that during a career year (which may be a fluke), Ryan Theriot in a few of those areas outproduced Michael Young who performed below his career averages.
how can you tell...
How do we know he had a career year when he's only had 2 full years of playing time? That's our argument. If Theriot fails next year, so what? He only cost under 1mil and we can go out come July 31 and look for an upgrade. If Young fails next year, we are on the hook for 65 mil over the next 5 years.
hmmmmm
Michael Young will be better next year, I agree. But he's not worth it. Let Theriot keep walking and hitting his slap singles so Lee/Ramirez/Soto/Bradley etc can drive him in. The Cubs scored 855 runs last year preciously because of their high OBP.
Please -- Let's not get back to Dusty and his "clogging up the bases" way of thinking...
Because after 1200 career at
Because after 1200 career at bats, Theriot played above his career averages - don't believe me, compare his career averages and tell me how much better he did than them - and he was still a mediocre offensive player all things considered.
At his age, with his career numbers, it is indisputable that he had a career year - until he does it again. Realistically speaking, he won't. His '09 still shouldn't be terrible, but in any lineup he belongs either batting 1st or 8th, not 2nd, and if there was a team with 8 Theriots and 8 Youngs, over 162 games the Youngs would win more often.
Theriot is just a very vanilla hitter.
The funny thing is that I actually LIKE Theriot, I actually argued that Theriot should be the starting SS in '08 (because as I believe you so aptly put, 25 hits could make a big difference and Theriot was about 25 hits away in '07 from being indisputably good), I just am very realistic in terms of where Theriot falls when compared with other SS in baseball.
now we're talking...
Let's throw out the 8 Youngs vs 8 Theriots argument -- that makes no sense and is kinda weird.
Hell, I'll even agree with you that Theriot should bat 8th. Actually I think 8th is a really really good idea. But wait, I love OBP, why not 2nd? Well, 2nd is fine, but I'd rather have Fontenot 2nd -- he has a little more pop in the bat, strong OBP and he hits lefty.
Theriot should bat 8th because I think that will maximize what he does best -- getting on first and not making outs. Since Soriano is going to bat 1st regardless, why not have Theriot bat "in front of him"?
So batting him 8th (with pitcher 9th) puts him on base for Soriano.
Fine by me.
And just because it's Vanilla doesn't mean it's not tasty.
In fact, Theriot is French Vanilla -- which is totally tasty.
"Let's throw out the 8
"Let's throw out the 8 Youngs vs 8 Theriots argument -- that makes no sense and is kinda weird. "
Only if you don't want to compare offensive supremacy. If Theriot is a better offensive player than Young, then a team of 8 Theriots would win more games than a team of 8 Youngs if they had equal pitching.
Maybe you missed my earlier response to a comment of yours, so I'll say it again ...
I said that, pound for pound, Young was a better shortstop. The response by you was to prove it. I did, to which you responded "oh yeah, well Theriot isn't supposed to be an offensive producer anyway, he's just supposed to get on base, and he does that better than Young!"
You prove your point by mis-characterizing Young as being "Corey Patterson-like" and by ignoring the heavy evidence that - as I said - Young is a better shortstop than Ryan Theriot.
Now, you say "Young will hit 10 (or so) more HRs and more doubles" - I guess you're acknowledging that he's a better offensive player? - "for 10mil / Theriot will get on base more and make less outs for under 1mil. You decide which is more valuable."
Do me a favor and go, read my comments, and report back on what I've "decided" in terms of "which is more valuable."
oy
The "you" was the royal "you". We all know which one you would pick.
And no, I am acknowledging that he is a DIFFERENT type of player. Not all of us gush over bubble gum card stats like HRs and RBIs and the players that produce the highest totals of those.
For the 2009 Cubs we need players who can hit HRs -- that is true. But we also need players who can be on base when those HRs are hit so we can score multiple runs. When you score multiple runs, you have a better chance of winning the game.
Really?
So which one would I pick?
If you could characterize my stance on Theriot Or Young 2009 in one sentence, what do I want the Cubs to do?
P.S. Michael Young - career OBP = .346; 3-year-split OBP = .353
no no no
the "royal you" is like the the "royal we":
the Royal pronoun, the Royal 'we' or the Victorian 'we'. The more general word for the use of "we" to refer to oneself is nosism, from the Latin nos.[1]
The idea behind the pluralis maiestatis is that a monarch or other high official always speaks for his or her people.[citation needed] For example, the Basic Law of the Sultanate of Oman opens thus:
On the Issue of the Basic Law of the State We, Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman…[2]
Famous examples of purported instances:
* We are not amused. — Queen Victoria (in at least one account of this quotation, though, she was not speaking for herself alone, but for the ladies of the court.)[3]
* In his abdication statement, Nicholas II of Russia uses the pluralis maiestatis liberally, as in "In agreement with the Imperial Duma, We have thought it well to renounce the Throne of the Russian Empire and to lay down the supreme power."[4]
So...
So I wasn't asking "you" to decide, but was asking "yoooooouuuuuuuuu" the public to decide.
Michael Young OBP
Michael Young BB% last year = 7.9
Theriot's BB% last year = 11.2
Like I said, Young's OBP was very BA driven.
I just would appreciate it
I just would appreciate it if you - not the royal variety - could kindly answer the question. Since you - again, not royal - have seemingly taken a stance on my opinion about Theriot v. Young, I would like you - YOU - to tell me what my stance is, just so we - YOU AND I - are clear.
YOU
You would take Young over Theriot obviously.
or am I missing something?
And that's how I know you
And that's how I know you haven't been reading what I wrote.
"I would float out the argument that IF the Cubs can afford a superior shortstop, and IF they are going to in fact upgrade at SS at a tremendous expense, then they should hold their cards for just a little longer and try to find a better guy for the money in July or next winter."
"so let me say it clearly because I don't want to get painted into a corner here ...
5. Because they are already offensively solid, the Cubs should hold onto Theriot - even if Young is available for next-to-nothing - despite Young's offensive superiority because he wouldn't represent *enough* of an offensive upgrade to make it worth while."
It IS fantastic!
I guess you think the real killer is still out there. Keep hope alive.
Yes, I think I've made a compelling argument that these two individuals are virtually peers at their position, offensively, both being remarkably unremarkable. One is clearly on the wrong side of his career with an annually depreciating skillset and the other has a questionable sample size. One offers a very modest improvement in overall OPS over the other as he has more extra base hits but is inferior defensively, regardless of what you and the Bill Plaschke's of the wold think. One has a terrible contract from a team perspective and one has a very team favorable contract, both in dollars, and most importantly, in years.
Ryan Theriot's 2008 may have been a fluke, this I cannot refute, because of his relatively small sample size. What I can say, is that it should be clear to you that Young's skills are on the decline and even if price isn't an issue to you, the length of Young's contract certainly should be.
If only I hadn't come to the
If only I hadn't come to the conclusion in, like, MY FIRST POST ON THE TOPIC that the Cubs would be better served acquiring a better SS in July or next winter...
But Young is still better than Theriot, just so's we're clear.
Oh, ok, so we were debating
Oh, ok, so we were debating that point all along? Geez... "SAMSONITE! I was WAY off." So, let's move to next winter. Since I know you've done a lot of complex analysis on the subject, you probably don't need me to tell you who the 2010 SS free agent SS are....
Bobby Crosby OAK
Alex Gonzalez * CIN
Khalil Greene STL
John McDonald TOR
Marco Scutaro TOR
Miguel Tejada HOU
Jack Wilson * PIT
That plan should work out well.
Anyway, I have very much enjoyed your moxy. You have a very confident way of telling me that today is March 48th.
But
If they got Michael Young and didn't trade Ryan Theriot then does any of this really matter? One would play SS and one would split time at 2B with Fontenot. The Rangers aren't looking to get a SS in return, as they are already looking to move Young to 3rd as it is now. So, if and big if, the cubs did get Michael Young it really wouldn't matter which one was a better SS because both of them would be on the team and you don't lose Theriot's production since he can slide over and play 2B. If the cubs get Young it will take young pitching & probably Vitters too.
How long you been here?
That's my role, chief.
There's two ways a man can determine that Young is more productive than Theriot:
1) Go out to any site that has their statistics
2) Watch baseball
Like I told the ceepea - I don't care what Theriot will do vs Young the next five years. I fully expect Theriot to be the superior player in 2013. Probably in 2012. Maybe even by 2010.
I don't care. Across the board, in nearly every offensive (and defensive) category, except average and the ALL IMPORTANT SEXAY OPS, Young outperformed Theriot in 2008. Range factor different is huge.
The OPS+ difference in 2008 wasn't as huge as I would have expected. But 2008 represented Young's WORST year and Theriot's BEST. Is there a trend? I guess. Theriot is starting from Ground Zero and Young is 31.
If you wish to wager on Theriot's OPS+ in 2009 vs. Young's, I'll take it.
I watch every game
seriously, i do. i watch on direct tv at home and slingbox it at work. ask my girlfriend. no really, i have a girlfriend too.
all kidding aside, OPS is not Theriot's strong suit -- OBP is. OPS is OBP (good for Theriot) + SLUG (not Theriot's purpose).
He makes less outs than Young and gets on base more. We have 27 outs to play with in 9 innings. Theriot has a better chance than Young to make fewer of those outs, and thus score (not drive in -- leave that up to the big boys) more runs.
That is what I care about.
ok
Check out the big brain on Rob!
Range factor, just making sure you know that it's Putouts + Assists / Innings. Young fielded something like 124 grounders than Theriot.
RngR (range runs): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, determined by how the fielder is able to get to balls hit in his vicinity.
Young = -9.1
Theriot = 0.5
ErrR (error runs): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, determined by the number of errors he makes as compared to an average fielder at that position given the same distribution of balls in play.
Young = 5.2
Theriot = -.09
UZR (ultimate zone rating): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs and error runs combined.
Young = -3.9
Theriot = -.04
That range factor stat you rolled out is really pretty simple and doesn't take into account much realistic variability.
As for OPS+, that is interesting with Young checking in at 96 and Theriot at 93. I thought it was interesting that Young was 109 at home and 87 away. Just sayin'.
I would say that you can safely say, especially as you view Young's career progression, yes, this is a trend. As for Theriot, the sample size is smaller, so it's harder to judge if his improvement was trend or fluke in '08. For the sheer fact of the time left on Young's contract, I think it foolish to risk otherwise.
I'll put this in terms you can understand. God damn! Fact is, you are F*CKIN doin' a god damn good job of trying to cocksmack the stats. JUST WIN BABY!
What concerns me
when we talk about the most defensively challenged position besides catcher, is that we are discussing Young and Theriot's offensive stats.
I think many here will agree that the Tampa Bay Rays, are a wonderfully constructed ball club. Now even though their approach is quite different than the Cubs due to financial resources, when they needed an upgrade at SS, their most important concern was that they acquired the best defensive SS they could. The Rays like the Cubs are a fine offensive club, but it was imperative to their manager Maddon, that SS had to be upgraded and the highest priority was the player's defensive prowess.
Unless we are talking about a young A-Rod or Nomar type player, the key stat we should be concerned with, especially for our 8 hitter should be his defense.
I agree with Rob that money shouldn't be an issue, but I'd rather see a situation where the length of the contract wasn't so great. I also agree with Rob that when the Cubs are coming off a 97 win season, what better time to get every piece you can to improve the team. The Cubs addressed the LHB situation and even if no one is talking about it in the front office, a superior defensive SS is a situation that can and should be upgraded.
Wait
I know Jack Wilson has temples built in his name along the fruited plains of Pittsburgh.
When did we start agreeing
When did we start agreeing with each other, Rob? It's happening on a frighteningly frequent basis.
I dunno
but I'll keep on keeping on
Wow.
That's a whole lot of vitriol for a point that's mostly academic and fairly...craptastical. I don't disagree with you at all that money alone shouldn't be a factor in considering players. On that you're exactly right, although somewhat deranged and over the top in your delivery. Young's position, however, has a few more layers on the onion. The more you peel it back, the more it stinks.
Read this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3829374&name=olney_buster
Most teams are shying away from Young because:
1. They view his position as selfish (his contract is incentive-laden and the gold glove, among others, is a beauty pageant).
2. His D is an incremental upgrade and his bat since 2005 isn't commensurate with his salary.
3. He has a no-trade clause that will make him very tough to unload if he continues his downward trajectory at the plate (he's 32 now).
Taking on Young's contract isn't a slam dunk as you're left with an albatross around your neck for years. People complain a lot about Soriano's contract, but he's a much better player. Young's situation isn't as large in magnitude, but it's of the same vein. Imagine wanting the next big free agent next year and having the 11mm+ annually in Young's untradeable contract (with deferred money starting in 2016) being the chokepoint.
Regardless, Hendry's tread so lightly with Roberts and Peavy that it's hard to believe he'd give up a lot for Young. Folks are a little uneasy taking on Bradley given his temperament. Young's reputation has been squeaky clean until this, but it may give the front office pause.
In the end, it's doubtful Hendry addresses this with any real conviction. Time will tell.
I don't think Hendry will go after Young
I guess Young represents a concept.
I am tired of seeing our management wring their hands about player salaries, considering we are 3rd in revenues and 8th in salaries.
Personally, in terms of "fit" for this particular team, Peavy > Roberts > Young.
And I understand that Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Fukudome, Zambrano, Dempster, Harden and now Bradley have back-loaded contracts, and that the 2010 number will be much higher. TOO BAD!! This is 2009. Worry about 2010 next year.
Michael Young - The Name
I think a lot of people get caught up in "names". Michael Young is just that. People remember that he had a nice few years and that he got a big hit in an All Star Game -- and thus he has created this "name" for himself. When you break down his stats, his OPS was LOWER than Theriot's last year (while in the creamy stat of OBP Theriot had him by 48 points).
A down year you say? Ok fine, let's look at '07. That year his OPS was right around Brendan Harris Level -- and below Jack Wilson. '06 was the last time his OPS was over .800 -- and he plays half his games in a little league park.
The point is this: Could he have a nice year next year for us? Sure. But when you factor in that he's got a massive contract (with tons of deferred money), he's getting older, he's never shown patience at the plate (a good indicator of future success) -- why would we try?
It is futile, I fear
to enter a conversation with you on this subject.
In 2008, Young was more productive than Theriot. That's all I care about. I don't care about 2010. Just 2009.
in what way?
I fail to see how he was more productive. Please enlighten me. What did he do that was better then Theriot besides hitting a few HRs and playing slightly better defense?
Every other measurable metric says you are wrong.
in what way?
WAY better defense
WAY more RBIs
also provides the team leadership that this Country Club bunch sorely lack
sigh...
RBIs? "team leadership"?
sigh...
Bill James would be rolling over in his grave if he wasn't dead.
RBIs are the hitter's equivalent of the pitcher's win total: way too many team factors to consider it a useful stat for a single player.
Remember:
Jason Marquis: 79-70.
leadership?
How is that measured? Is that measured in Awesom-o's? Besides, how do you know how many Awesom-o's Young is worth?
I agree with most of what you said
The cubs should be spending more money, no question about it. The sale is holding a lot of this process up, thanks to pretty much every person involved. No definitive owner and lots of escalating player contracts have tied Hendry's hands this off-season, to an extent. But in all honesty, I don't know how he could have done much better given who was available and what money he had in front of him to work with. How could the guy have done any better outside of signing Sabathia & Manny?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not impressed much at all with signing Gathright and Miles or trading for Kevin Gregg. But the team has achieved some of their goals this off-season; Marquis was traded, the middle infield is a little less congested, a solid LH hitter was added to the lineup, and the rotation is dangerous and with any significant addition could be the best in the game. Another LH pitcher of some kind needs to be added and likely a few subtractions will take place as well, but at this point I think the team should take what they've got to camp and see how everyone performs on the field.
I would take Michael Young on the team any day, the guy simply sprays baseballs all over the field when he hits and when he's healthy. His defense would be of slight concern, but it wouldn't be any worse than what was there before. My only problem in acquiring Young would likely be in what the team has to trade away to get him, but if the Rangers are looking to pull a salary dump then it would be a gamble well worth the risk. I personally like the Theriot-Fontenot combo up the middle, especially with how long the 2 have played together and how comfortable they likely will be playing alongside one another.
I would be a bigger advocate of bringing players through the system if the cubs were a little more consistent in being able to evaluate their players. The cubs have no problems developing can't miss prospects, players that any team could develop. The team seems to prefer big attributes as opposed to good baseball players, and as a result few of their "top prospects" never pan out. The cub's system isn't developing players any better or faster than the Yankees are, and that's not a very good sign when most of the Yankees' resources go to free agent signings. The cubs could look to make the big trades that you spoke of (Peavy, Roberts, Yunel Escobar, etc.) but I surely expect it to take a whole, whole heck of a lot to get any one of them.
I also completely agree with you that Vitters and AAAA players are completely expendable if a move can be made that helps the cubs win now. If the team is willing to trade Vitters for Peavy, then why not shop him around to other teams and see what else you could get? The minor league players are there to help the MLB team in any way they can; if it so happens that their biggest value can be realized through a trade, then the team should make a move.
I got a question: Why hasn't cubs management just gone and spoke to all of the 3 ownership groups left in the final bidding, and see how each of them feels about the payroll for 2009? If none would be opposed to say a payroll of $1XX M dollars, then Hendry would know approximately how much money he had to work with regardless of who the eventual owner would be.
Your question is EXCELLENT
I had assumed that Hendry was doing that. So either:
a) he isn't able to ask the prospective buyers, or
b) he has, and the prospective buyers are not comfortable raising the payroll from $125MM.
Option a tells me that due diligence is not being done. Option b tells me that whomever buys this team, it will be M.O.T.S.
Option a is easy - just fire Hendry. Option b is far worse.