2015 Spring Training Thread

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
I've more than beat the dead horse that is Baez. So, I honestly see no reason to continue. However, I would like to chime in on the ST being meaningless. By in large I agree it's about preparing yourself more than the actual results. However, that's mainly for people who've proven themselves. Baez on the other hand still has a lot to prove. Spring Training wont be his only chance to prove himself. That being said, he's done nothing to change the perception. I've made it clear that I don't believe his struggles last season to be just a minor speed bump on a path to a huge career. What I hope people will realize is that until he does something to change his perception, this is the player he is. The same goes for any young player be it Olt, Alcantara, Turner...etc.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,848
Liked Posts:
9,042
It takes Pitchers that much longer to get ready.
Pitchers throw less breaking stuff initially, and their fastballs are at a lower quality then say mid April.
Like I said, watch the games in how many big time pitchers do not win nor do their teams win in the first two weeks of the season. It's almost borderline not gambling.

I am done with this convo.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,848
Liked Posts:
9,042
I've more than beat the dead horse that is Baez. So, I honestly see no reason to continue. However, I would like to chime in on the ST being meaningless. By in large I agree it's about preparing yourself more than the actual results. However, that's mainly for people who've proven themselves. Baez on the other hand still has a lot to prove. Spring Training wont be his only chance to prove himself. That being said, he's done nothing to change the perception. I've made it clear that I don't believe his struggles last season to be just a minor speed bump on a path to a huge career. What I hope people will realize is that until he does something to change his perception, this is the player he is. The same goes for any young player be it Olt, Alcantara, Turner...etc.

That is true. My point was dont any decisions based on one game in spring training. We will see a clearer picture 3 weeks from now. Also, even if he does struggle in spring games doesnt mean he doesnt show the Cubs enough on the side to be the starter still. Last year, Baez killed ST and everyone was calling for him to break camp with the team. He had the same flaws back then but they werent seen as much. Get where I am going with this?
 

2323

New member
Joined:
May 26, 2013
Posts:
2,228
Liked Posts:
439
Rizzo to bat second tom. Maddon is saying not to read into lineups during ST but I had this theory about Rizzo in the 2 hole. Im just excted to see some ball tom.

Either Rizzo or Soler at the two hole makes sense. But Soler seems to have a lot more power, so putting him third is ideal. You want the two guys who can see the most pitches in the 1 and 2 holes as they get the most at bats and drive up pitch counts early.

It's far from a full-blown trend, but an interesting little blip has appeared in some Major League lineups in the first week of the season. And even if it doesn't catch on in a big way, clubs might be wise to pay attention.

The Yankees and the Twins have both experimented with batting their best hitter second. It's nontraditional, but it's smart. While neither Robinson Cano nor Joe Mauer fits the prototype of the No. 2 hitter -- a speedy, slappy bat-handler -- they're both well-suited to the actual demands of the job.

The No. 2 hitter, according to the great "The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball," is one of the most essential spots in the lineup. It comes up with about as many RBI chances as the No. 3 spot, but obviously comes up more often. Thus, while historically the idea is that you should bat your best hitter third, in fact he should hit second or fourth (where there are even more chances to drive in runs but of course fewer plate appearances).

Neither manager, Joe Girardi nor Ron Gardenhire, made a big deal of the move, and in each case it's not likely to remain in place for long. But there's some real sense to both decisions. Cano and Mauer are both all-around hitters who can get on base for the men behind them and drive in the guys in front of them. And the one worry about batting a star hitter second in the National League, that he's only two spots behind the pitcher, doesn't apply in the American League.

"I want [Mauer] to bat first, second and third, but I can only bat him in one place, so we chose second," Gardenhire said.

Gardenhire pointed to an old philosophy that Tony La Russa was fond of: having power early in the lineup to get a pitcher's attention. La Russa often referred to having "damage" in the two-spot, a place where he put hitters such as Jim Edmonds and Larry Walker. Those hitters, of course, were both also high-OBP men, as are Cano and Mauer.

Girardi also noted that moving Cano to second, with Kevin Youkilis third, breaks up a run of left-handed hitters in the Yankees order.

"It's just to try to not make it so easy on the other team," he said.

While the fundamentals, getting on base and hitting for power, are most important, a secondary consideration for a good No. 2 hitter is avoiding the double play. It's assumed that your leadoff man is going to be getting on base at a pretty good clip, and that the batters in the 3-4-5 spots are the sorts who might turn those baserunners into runs. So a hitter who has a proclivity to hit into twin-killings is a bad fit for the two-hole.

That's actually one area where Cano and Mauer fall a bit short. They both hit into their share of double plays, though neither is an extreme DP threat. It helps that they're both left-handed, making it a smidge easier to get to first base in time.

In the end, both Mauer and Cano will likely be hitting third (or perhaps fourth) before too terribly long. But it's not as odd as some people might think to have them hitting in the No. 2 spot for at least a little while.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/43974688/matthew-leach

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/17/795946/optimizing-your-lineup-by

Essentially, if you go by numbers. The 2 hole is the most important place to bat and your best hitter should bat there.

If Maddon bats Rizzo at 2 AND bats the pitcher 8th, he's still essentially the #3 hitter. There are a variety of reasons to do this.

Historically, the 2 spot was one of your most skilled and versatile hitter. He'd be the guy who could work counts, be able to bunt, and do things like hit to the right side if a runner is at second. Robbie Alomar comes to mind as the almost ideal #2 hitter. It's interesting though that this somewhat embraces the idea of productive outs. So much of this recent trend has been about avoiding outs. I also think this is a shortcoming. Practically every game, one tea is going to make 27 (or 24 outs if the home team is ahead after 8.5) so there's nothing wrong with being as good at managing how you make those outs as you can.

Btw, someone needs to scrutinize "The Book". There's a little bit of self fulfilling prophecy here. Btw, one flaw with OBP that people don't talk about is that it omits from the numerator the number of times players reached because of error. This especially works against fast guys since infielders often make mistakes because the speed of the guy running to first puts them under more pressure. If OBP is going to be authentic, it should include this. If a fast guy is at first base and the pitcher is so worried about the runner that he grooves a fast ball and the batter hits a home run, the batter doesn't lose credit for the home run just because the pitcher was too worried about the runner and it caused him to make a mistake in location and/or pitch selection.

And what about all the strike outs? Yes a strikeout is better than grounding into. A double play but how many times does that happen in relationship to the strike outs? In the 70s and 80s there was more speed and teams playing on turf. Then by the mid 90s, when much of this analysis was starting, speed was out of the game compared to before. And so naturally your analysis is going to skew toward power. And with the power came more strikeouts Now the power numbers have dropped but the strikeouts haven't. And now that teams have, at least somewhat, gone back to relying on speed, you have this methos that's dated and skewed (because it was formulated during the steroid era) trying to regulate how and whether it's good or bad to use it.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,848
Liked Posts:
9,042
What? Errors count as an out for the batter. Why would it go into obp? It is very minimal of speed guys getting on all the time because of errors. In fact, they probably get credited with hits more often then not.im sure there are ways to scrutinize the book but it was published in 2007. It isn't some relic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,624
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
What? Errors count as an out for the batter. Why would it go into obp? It is very minimal of speed guys getting on all the time because of errors. In fact, they probably get credited with hits more often then not.im sure there are ways to scrutinize the book but it was published in 2007. It isn't some relic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because they got on base. Duh. :D
 

theberserkfury

Active member
Joined:
Jul 23, 2013
Posts:
626
Liked Posts:
149
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
Because they got on base. Duh. :D

On that note, does anyone have any numbers on bases reached because of errors? I wonder if there's any players who tend to stand out... cause if a player gets on base because of errors more than the average player, that seems like something they should be credited for...
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,848
Liked Posts:
9,042
On that note, does anyone have any numbers on bases reached because of errors? I wonder if there's any players who tend to stand out... cause if a player gets on base because of errors more than the average player, that seems like something they should be credited for...

Im sure there is but that is more luck then anything. Like I said, speed guys get credited with hits more often then not because their speed makes it a routine play. Also, errors are totally up to scorekeepers. They make the decision. It can be appealed to MLB but they dont always overturn. Errors do not go against a pitchers ERA, so why would it be beneficial to the batter?
 

2323

New member
Joined:
May 26, 2013
Posts:
2,228
Liked Posts:
439
Im sure there is but that is more luck then anything. Like I said, speed guys get credited with hits more often then not because their speed makes it a routine play. Also, errors are totally up to scorekeepers. They make the decision. It can be appealed to MLB but they dont always overturn. Errors do not go against a pitchers ERA, so why would it be beneficial to the batter?


Perhaps it's luck or perhaps it isn't. Or perhaps the fielder was unlucky to field ground ball when someone fast was running to first. But on the idea of it being luck, and as I mentioned in my previous pos (which you were not able to comprehend) but it's also luck when a pitcher grooves a fastball or hangs a breaking ball. That doesn't mean the home run doesn't count. Maybe this will sink in for you at some point but I doubt it.
 

Bear Pride

Bears Gonna Shock the World!
Joined:
Aug 28, 2012
Posts:
10,615
Liked Posts:
3,091
No, you are over emotional and this post shows it. Whats funny is I am not a Sabers guy at all. I understand Sabers and realize how they help in evaluating. It seems like you do not and think everyone that does is a saber geek. I suggest calming down and stop being so emotional over every post. Schwarber grand slam means absolutely nothing. Evaluate him during his actual season. You are the same guy that didnt want Lester over 1 start. You are over emotional.

Not at all. I'm just tired of your no personality comments. Seriously, how many times must you repeat that ST stats don't mean a thing when I pretty much agreed with that in my 1st post?

There was no reason for you to tell me that multiple times. To me, you're just an idiot that prefers to antagonize. You didn't have to say anything, but you couldn't help yourself. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are, dude.

And WTF are you talking about not wanting Lester over 1 start? I simply NEVER said anything about Lester to you. Wrong poster, but I'm not surprised you made that mistake.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,848
Liked Posts:
9,042
Not at all. I'm just tired of your no personality comments. Seriously, how many times must you repeat that ST stats don't mean a thing when I pretty much agreed with that in my 1st post?

There was no reason for you to tell me that multiple times. To me, you're just an idiot that prefers to antagonize. You didn't have to say anything, but you couldn't help yourself. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are, dude.

And WTF are you talking about not wanting Lester over 1 start? I simply NEVER said anything about Lester to you. Wrong poster, but I'm not surprised you made that mistake.

Good talk!
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,848
Liked Posts:
9,042
Perhaps it's luck or perhaps it isn't. Or perhaps the fielder was unlucky to field ground ball when someone fast was running to first. But on the idea of it being luck, and as I mentioned in my previous pos (which you were not able to comprehend) but it's also luck when a pitcher grooves a fastball or hangs a breaking ball. That doesn't mean the home run doesn't count. Maybe this will sink in for you at some point but I doubt it.

Another great talk, so do you have something factual to prove this or is this a hyperbole?
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,848
Liked Posts:
9,042
Not at all. I'm just tired of your no personality comments. Seriously, how many times must you repeat that ST stats don't mean a thing when I pretty much agreed with that in my 1st post?

There was no reason for you to tell me that multiple times. To me, you're just an idiot that prefers to antagonize. You didn't have to say anything, but you couldn't help yourself. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are, dude.

And WTF are you talking about not wanting Lester over 1 start? I simply NEVER said anything about Lester to you. Wrong poster, but I'm not surprised you made that mistake.

I will apologize for the Lester thing. That was another poster. The rest of your post isover emotional again. You can hit thta ignore button if I get you that worked up. Im not going anywhere.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,669
Liked Posts:
2,845
Location:
San Diego
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/29118/olt-edwards-impressive-in-cubs-loss

MESA, Ariz. -- The Chicago Cubs lost to the San Diego Padres 6-3 on Monday and remain winless (0-5-1) in Cactus League play.

The good: Kyle Hendricks, Hector Rondon, Pedro Strop, Justin Grimm and even prospect C.J. Edwards looked good on the mound. Hendricks gave up three hits over two innings but made some big pitches to Justin Upton to get out of a jam in the fourth inning. He hit 79 and 80 mph on the radar gun before striking Upton out on an 87 mph fastball.

Fellow right-hander Edwards, meanwhile, pounded the strike zone, fanning two and getting a groundout for an easy 1-2-3 inning.

The Cubs did most of their damage on offense in the fifth inning, when five consecutive batters reached, including Mike Olt who homered for the second time this spring. Miguel Montero also went deep.

The bad: Edwin Jackson couldn’t pitch around a couple of errors -- including his own -- and gave up four hits and four runs in two innings. None of the hits off of him were cheap, as he wasn’t fooling anyone. Will Middlebrooks took him deep for a three-run shot. Jason Motte also grooved some pitches, giving up two runs on three hits.

Anthony Rizzo was hitless in three at-bats and is without a base knock this spring.

What it means: Most of the pitching went as one might have expected. Jackson doesn’t have a major role on this team, so it doesn’t really matter what he does. Motte might be of more interest. The right-hander is still coming back from past injuries, but right now it looks as if he’s throwing batting practice -- though the radar is showing a mid-90s fastball. There’s plenty of time left to round into shape, but there’s also nothing wrong with keeping an eye on Motte moving forward.

Olt might win Mr. March again, but don’t discount the changes he’s made. The at-bats are longer and he’s keeping within himself, as evidenced by drawing a walk after hitting a home run. He didn’t try for another long ball.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,669
Liked Posts:
2,845
Location:
San Diego
BTW: No one cares about the bickering. Get on point about the Cubs guys.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,669
Liked Posts:
2,845
Location:
San Diego
On the Olt part. I said I felt he was due for a break out. The reason is because of his ability to take walks. He has 30 HR potential but with 100 BB and 200 SO's. He falls under the Adam Dunn Arch type.

Edwards IMO needs to be brought up later this year but in the pen. He has shut down stuff and could have the same impact that Carlos Marmol had in 2007-2008 for the team. Come in in a tight situation and shut down the O.
 

JP Hochbaum

Well-known member
Joined:
May 22, 2012
Posts:
2,061
Liked Posts:
1,290
Man if Olt can be like an Adam Dunn that gives the Cubs a great opportunity to keep Schwarber in the minors long enough to learn catcher at a major league level, as having Olt as a 3b or backup 1b/Lf blocks Schwarber as Bryant would be LF and it forces the Cubs hands to play Schwarber at catcher, or just trade Olt for more minor league depth.
 

Top