Cubs First Base Options for 2012

[lantzchicago]

Here's my list of the potential first basemen for the Cubs next year that everyone has been speculating about. In the order of likelihood:

6. Albert Pujols
5. Prince Fielder
4. Derrek Lee
3. Carlos Pena
2. Tyler Colvin
1. Bryan LaHair

I wrote my explaination of the order here:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8...-and-the-aging

Please read and comment. What are your thoughts?

 

[Northside_slugger]

Error on the link. Not a fan of LaHair. He had a big year with our AAA team, but then again, he's a 28 year old playing with many 22-24 year old pitchers who are just trying to polish off their game. Although, i said the same thing about Casey McGehee when he left us, and he's proved me wrong thus far.

Tyler Colvin is under the microscope next season. He will be playing for his major league career. We'll truly see what that kid is made of.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Your reasoning for Fielder is that YOU doubt they will open their checkbook. Great reasoning. You give everyone else but LaHair an outside chance and your reasoning for LaHair is that he hit .288 in 20 games? Also, by the time ST comes around, I would think that we will know who our 1B is.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Error on the link. Not a fan of LaHair. He had a big year with our AAA team, but then again, he's a 28 year old playing with many 22-24 year old pitchers who are just trying to polish off their game. Although, i said the same thing about Casey McGehee when he left us, and he's proved me wrong thus far.

Tyler Colvin is under the microscope next season. He will be playing for his major league career. We'll truly see what that kid is made of.

Yeah, Casey McGeHee and his .272 wOBA really proved us wrong.

 

[Northside_slugger]

Your reasoning for Fielder is that YOU doubt they will open their checkbook. Great reasoning. You give everyone else but LaHair an outside chance and your reasoning for LaHair is that he hit .288 in 20 games? Also, by the time ST comes around, I would think that we will know who our 1B is.

It is a Bleacher Report article....

 

[Northside_slugger]

Yeah, Casey McGeHee and his .272 wOBA really proved us wrong.

He's done better then i expected, i doubt anybody said he'd be a star but i doubted he would be a everyday player. And anyone who hits for over 100 RBIs has done well for himself, in my book.

 

[daddies3angels]

Here's my list of the potential first basemen for the Cubs next year that everyone has been speculating about. In the order of likelihood:

6. Albert Pujols
5. Prince Fielder
4. Derrek Lee
3. Carlos Pena
2. Tyler Colvin
1. Bryan LaHair

I wrote my explaination of the order here:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8...-and-the-aging

Please read and comment. What are your thoughts?

Colvin would be last on that list

1: Pena
2: LaHair
3: Fielder
4: Pujols
5: Colvin


Pena cause Ricketts will want to sell to dumb Cub fans there not rebuilding.

 

[Captain Obvious]

He's done better then i expected, i doubt anybody said he'd be a star but i doubted he would be a everyday player. And anyone who hits for over 100 RBIs has done well for himself, in my book.

To base a player's success off of RBI's is just silly. RBI's are more reliant on line up position and your teammates than it is for the actual player. Consider McGehee, he's on the Brewers. He has Braun and Fielder hitting ahead of him, which means he is going to get a ton of pitches to hit and he's going to have guys on base ahead of him. RBIs do anything but show McGehee's true talent level.

 

[Northside_slugger]

To base a player's success off of RBI's is just silly. RBI's are more reliant on line up position and your teammates than it is for the actual player. Consider McGehee, he's on the Brewers. He has Braun and Fielder hitting ahead of him, which means he is going to get a ton of pitches to hit and he's going to have guys on base ahead of him. RBIs do anything but show McGehee's true talent level.

Don't be an idiot. Think outside the box for a second.

For a player to have RBI's, the player must bat with players on base, you're correct. Obviously, that is the name of the game. But, if McGehee doesn't hit those players in, by any form, homer, double or just singles, then, McGehee will send down the batting order, and if he still continues to struggle, he'd be on the bench. You don't put bad players to hit in spots where you know your team may have a runners on base. Now that is silly to think.

 

[daddies3angels]

To base a player's success off of RBI's is just silly. RBI's are more reliant on line up position and your teammates than it is for the actual player. Consider McGehee, he's on the Brewers. He has Braun and Fielder hitting ahead of him, which means he is going to get a ton of pitches to hit and he's going to have guys on base ahead of him. RBIs do anything but show McGehee's true talent level.

Il argue all day that RBI dont mean shit. if you watched Cubs at all this season you would realize if they had any hitters that could hit with runners in scoring position it would have not been a 92 loss team. How many damn times did they have bases loaded less then 2 out and dont score? TONS!! How many times did they have 1st and 3rd less then 2 outs and didnt score? TONS!! How many times did they have the bases loaded and never hit a grandslam? EVERY AB WITH BASES LOADED! Some guys know how to hit with runner on base while some just dont. I rather have a hitter who will make an out for the team then some jackass who HR,K's or walks every damn AB (PENA). So without players getting those RBI's then teams wouldnt score. SO DONT TELL ME RBI DONT MATTER. CAUSE THEY DO!!!

 

[waldo7239117]

Don't be an idiot. Think outside the box for a second.

For a player to have RBI's, the player must bat with players on base, you're correct. Obviously, that is the name of the game. But, if McGehee doesn't hit those players in, by any form, homer, double or just singles, then, McGehee will send down the batting order, and if he still continues to struggle, he'd be on the bench. You don't put bad players to hit in spots where you know your team may have a runners on base. Now that is silly to think.

He's already passed the idiot phase.

 

[Northside_slugger]

haha, btw i don't really mean it when i say stupid. This forum makes my day each time i log in, the baseball talk, the arguments, the news which is posted here as soon as it hits the wires, it's a great way to relax and enjoy my time. I like you all and am grateful for this web site. As a former windy city resident, it's not easy to keep track and i miss it so much so coming here really makes my day.

I love to talk baseball, i love to argue baseball, and i love talking with other Chicago people. God bless you all.

 

[tbo41fan]

why the F is derrek lee on that list? LMAO

 

[Rice Cube]

Captain Obvious is mostly right. RBIs don't correlate very well from season to season. It's a nice bubble gum card statistic to accrue and it will lead to team wins, but it's a team context statistic that doesn't tell you as much about the player as you think. It mainly tells you when that particular player was able to put the bat on the ball and have it drop somewhere that the fielders were not. If you count how many times the ball was hit super hard right to a defender or when Ivan DeJesus sent a runner home that was thrown out at the plate (thus costing an RBI), you realize two things...one, that the Cubs are a very bad team in many aspects of the game, and two, that they're really unlucky. Both will suppress RBI totals.

Towards the latter part of the season, guys like Ramirez and Pena would hit the ball hard, but there were multiple instances of there being nobody on base. That's baseball, unfortunately.

I wouldn't put that much weight on RBI totals. Naturally runs are nice to have, but unless a guy can hit a home run every single time at-bat, runs are a team stat and because the Cubs were a bad team, that is the main reason why they scored so few of them, not because someone wasn't clutch or whatever.

 

[daddies3angels]

Captain Obvious is mostly right. RBIs don't correlate very well from season to season. It's a nice bubble gum card statistic to accrue and it will lead to team wins, but it's a team context statistic that doesn't tell you as much about the player as you think. It mainly tells you when that particular player was able to put the bat on the ball and have it drop somewhere that the fielders were not. If you count how many times the ball was hit super hard right to a defender or when Ivan DeJesus sent a runner home that was thrown out at the plate (thus costing an RBI), you realize two things...one, that the Cubs are a very bad team in many aspects of the game, and two, that they're really unlucky. Both will suppress RBI totals.

Towards the latter part of the season, guys like Ramirez and Pena would hit the ball hard, but there were multiple instances of there being nobody on base. That's baseball, unfortunately.

I wouldn't put that much weight on RBI totals. Naturally runs are nice to have, but unless a guy can hit a home run every single time at-bat, runs are a team stat and because the Cubs were a bad team, that is the main reason why they scored so few of them, not because someone wasn't clutch or whatever.

So nevermind that Cubs hit .239 with runners in scoring position. Tells me Cubs are NON CLUTCH!!!! Again i take a guy who helps knock in runs any time

 

[Rice Cube]

So nevermind that Cubs hit .239 with runners in scoring position. Tells me Cubs are NON CLUTCH!!!! Again i take a guy who helps knock in runs any time

That's why there's such a thing as "luck" in baseball as well. Sometimes clutch is a function of luck. There's as much of a chance of a good "RBI guy" like some of the ones you like coming to this team and suddenly hitting like shit with RISP as well. It's the way baseball is. You simply cannot use RBI and BA w/RISP to evaluate players and that's been one of the reasons why Cubs have had issues with free agents.

 

[dabynsky]

So nevermind that Cubs hit .239 with runners in scoring position. Tells me Cubs are NON CLUTCH!!!! Again i take a guy who helps knock in runs any time

But the point that you guys keep neglecting is that there is no one that has been shown to hit well above or below their season numbers in RISP situations. Over time guys will hit the same regardless of the situation. There is no proof that a player is able to raise his level of play in certain situations. The way to get guys that knock in runs is to get the best hitters possible period. This picking of players based upon their performance in one situation in one season is how you make poor roster decisions.

And the 92 losses might have had something do with the fact that less than half the time a Cubs starter took the ball he went 6 innings and gave up fewer than 3 runs or that Cubs starters averaged 5.8 innings per game. Just a thought that fixing that might have gone a bit farther towards reducing that 92 number.

 

[daddies3angels]

That's why there's such a thing as "luck" in baseball as well. Sometimes clutch is a function of luck. There's as much of a chance of a good "RBI guy" like some of the ones you like coming to this team and suddenly hitting like shit with RISP as well. It's the way baseball is. You simply cannot use RBI and BA w/RISP to evaluate players and that's been one of the reasons why Cubs have had issues with free agents.

Comes to a point with a team where its just bad clutch hitting over luck. Cubs have been bad with risp for over 2 years now. Tells me its the players not just bad luck

 

[inactiveuser1]

I'd like to see derrick lee come back

 

[Rice Cube]

It's probably a combination of factors. Some of it is (especially if you look at the on-base stats) that there's nobody on base to drive in, and the number of RISP situations are few and far between. Some of it is that the guys who come up in those situations aren't actually that good. You'd have to pretty much sift through the box scores and play-by-play and dig out exactly how many situations each player has had. In the course of a season there are 600-700 plate appearances for an everyday player and if you don't have at least a certain number of them (I forgot what the accepted cutoff is) in RISP situations, then the BA w/RISP statistic is garbage. I wouldn't want my GM relying on that, but if you as a fan wish to use it to spin a narrative, more power to you.