TSN's Deveney's Take on Roberts-Cubs

[clapdiddy]

The thing that inexplicably seems to be escaping most everyone here is that Roberts' value is not diminished much, if at all, by hitting second as opposed to first.

If his value is 100 as a leadoff guy, it's 90 or 95 as a #2 guy.

He still can run. He still "sets the table". There's still value in working the count. And on and on. The value inherent in those skills are not lost once a player moves from 1 to 2 in the lineup.

Now contrast that with Soriano. I gave the numbers earlier, and they're pretty compelling. If Soriano's value is 100 as a leadoff hitter, it's only like 60 or 70 as a 3/4/5 hitter... maybe even less than that.

So why wouldn't you sacrifice a minimal amount of value by moving Roberts one slot, versus losing significant value by moving Soriano several slots?

I'm with you, Dave. A leadoff hitter may only hit leadoff once in a game.

I'm sure you'd agree that IDEALLY, Roberts would be a better leadoff hitter. But, if moving Soriano further down in the lineup affects his numbers, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to move him.

A Soriano/Roberts 1-2 would sure look nice for the Cubs. I truly think that Roberts is a great fit for them.

[Owatcher]

The thing that inexplicably seems to be escaping most everyone here is that Roberts' value is not diminished much, if at all, by hitting second as opposed to first.

If his value is 100 as a leadoff guy, it's 90 or 95 as a #2 guy.

He still can run. He still "sets the table". There's still value in working the count. And on and on. The value inherent in those skills are not lost once a player moves from 1 to 2 in the lineup. People seem so fixated on defining him as "a great leadoff hitter" that they can't realize that he'd be a great #2 hitter too, and for the same reasons he's good at the top.

Now contrast that with Soriano. I gave the numbers earlier, and they're pretty compelling. If Soriano's value is 100 as a leadoff hitter, it's only like 60 or 70 as a 3/4/5 hitter... maybe even less than that.

So why wouldn't you sacrifice a minimal amount of value by moving Roberts one slot, versus losing significant value by moving Soriano several slots?

Wouldn't a Roberts/Soriano combo make more sense in that Soriano is a better RBI guy and will bring Roberts around more often than the likelihood of Roberts bringing him around.

[Mashed Potatoes]

BTW, your last paragraph is totally uncalled for IMHO.

Really? El Gordo accused him of being enslaved to statistics to make up for his inability to play the real game. That's as condescending and presumptive as it gets. Maybe I misinterpreted his intent but I got angry for Rob H reading his post.

Furthermore I agree with the claim that you don't need to have played the game at a high level in order to analyze it and forecast it on the individual and team level. Our first face off coach at W+L was actually an attackman who didn't face off in college. After a coaching turnover our second face off coach was actually a long pole when he played. They both knew their stuff and were very helpful instructors just from learning the intricacies in an academic manner.

Finally, I agree that Roberts should bat 2nd on the Cubs. There are 2 options.

A) Bat Soriano 1st, where he's shown nothing but success.

B) Bat Soriano 2nd, where he has a history of inferior performance.

Why would anyone choose B when there's no reason to take such a risk?

[davearm]

Wouldn't a Roberts/Soriano combo make more sense in that Soriano is a better RBI guy and will bring Roberts around more often than the likelihood of Roberts bringing him around.

Not if Soriano's OPS is going to fall by 100 points, like it has historically.

[joew]

We need to get Eric Patterson in this deal to play 2B. His upside will be as good as what BRob is now. The package needs to be Gallagher, Murton, Patterson and possibly one more. I'll be happy with the three with Patterson playing 2B and possibly flipping Huff, Millar, Payton, and Gibbons (no way anyone would want him) for a SS. We can keep Scott as DH.

We just have too many dead weights all playing the same position with $4-7 million payouts. Horrible decisions in the past. This type of quantity is not what we want. For those four players we can pay Tex to come play 1B.

If we don't get Pie, we need Patterson, Murton and Gallgher. It'll be nice if they included Sean Marshall. I just don't see Cedeno as a viable solution for the short or long term.

[RShack]

While I put a lot of weight in many of the statistical theories and studies of the past twenty years, I don't buy the studies I've read on line up placement/make up. I've played the game enough to know that it does matter and I think the studies are flawed. It is simply impossible to isolate the proper variables IMHO.

I agree with this. Of all the various theories about how lineups do or don't matter, I'm in the "do matter" camp.

Of the various theories about how to optimize lineups, I like the old Bill James idea that came from him looking at inning-by-inning production. It lead him to conclude that standard baseball practice about lineup construction was wrong: it increased 1st-inning production at the cost of decreasing 2nd-inning production. Furthermore, it hurt 2nd-inning production *more* than it helped 1st-inning production. All in all, teams produced *worse* when managers influenced who came to bat when. His ideas about how to correct this seemed plausible to me.

[Rob H]

Your analogy in the first paragraph is weak IMO. To make your analogy accurate, you'd have to ask which of these options you'd choose if selecting a pilot for your flight: someone who has been to school for flying, someone has has flown but never been to school, or someone who has both studied and has experience. I think the answer in this situation is fairly obvious.

And I fully agree with you on that one. Ideally, the managers have actually looked at the research and have an idea of what actually does and doesn't work, and they can combine that with their experience on taking care of the intangibles.

Perhaps a real life example is more prudent...

Joe Morgan would be a horrible manager. You'd be seeing sacrifice bunts in the first inning, a ton of hit and runs, and a #2 hitter whose primary aptitude was being able to lay down a bunt. All of these things in combination would lead to a downturn in runs over the course of the season.

Likewise, Bill James would be a horrible manager. He'd make all the right calls out there on the field, but he wouldn't exactly be garnering the respect of the players under him. And he wouldn't even have a clue how to run a practice during spring training. He simply doesn't have the experience necessary. Over the course of the season, that would come back to bite him in the rear.

The best thing that could be done is to have Joe Morgan have a little headset on during the games, with Bill James calling down suggestions all game long. It's not gonna happen, but it'd be real nice if we could at least get some managers to start believing what the abundance of new information has proven to us.

I'm a chemical engineer and a stathead type. I've read the studies you're referring to. I also played ball at a fairly high level. None of that is intended to convey anything except my basis for the next statement. While I put a lot of weight in many of the statistical theories and studies of the past twenty years, I don't buy the studies I've read on line up placement/make up. I've played the game enough to know that it does matter and I think the studies are flawed. It is simply impossible to isolate the proper variables IMHO.

And personally, I'm inclined to believe that you might be right as well. But I'm of the mind that we're doing things a bit backwards, trying to stack the speed at the top of the lineup where it isn't properly leveraged. I'd love to hear your theory, though.

BTW, your last paragraph is totally uncalled for IMHO.

In my defense, I had my mental state attacked. Considering my response was a simple appeal to have an open mind, I would have to press you on why you feel my actions are worse than his.

[bluehens45]

I would ask for Gallagher, Epat, Colvin, and Cedeno. I would take on Marquis if they would include Veal. I would still like to pry Pie from them somehow. Pie, Veal, and Patterson would work for me.

[El Gordo]

I would like Malmo, Gallegher/Marshall/Veal, Cedeno, and Fontenot.

[thundercleetz]

I would much rather like EPat in the deal rather then Cedeno. Trading Roberts creates a huge hole at the top of our lineup unless we can get Pie or EPat back.

[El Gordo]

I would much rather like EPat in the deal rather then Cedeno. Trading Roberts creates a huge hole at the top of our lineup unless we can get Pie or EPat back.

Taking on EPatt creates a huge hole between 1B and 2B. He'd be great if they had a designated fielder.

[thundercleetz]

Taking on EPatt creates a huge hole between 1B and 2B. He'd be great if they had a designated fielder.

Is EPat's defense really that bad? Is he a lost cause at 2B? Shouldn't his speed be a great asset at 2B?

[Roll Tide]

Is EPat's defense really that bad? Is he a lost cause at 2B? Shouldn't his speed be a great asset at 2B?

The report is his footwork is pitiful!

[Rob H]

I don't know if I'd go that far. It may be the best in the history of the Orioles (either this or the '95-'96 off-seasons) but the Marlins have had 2 rebuilding off-seasons that I can think of in the last 10 years that were way better than ours (of course they did have a lot more value from the guys they were trading as they had just won the WS)

The only player they ever got from that first firesale that did anything for them was Derrek Lee.

[Number5]

I'm with you, Dave. A leadoff hitter may only hit leadoff once in a game.

I'm sure you'd agree that IDEALLY, Roberts would be a better leadoff hitter. But, if moving Soriano further down in the lineup affects his numbers, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to move him.

A Soriano/Roberts 1-2 would sure look nice for the Cubs. I truly think that Roberts is a great fit for them.

Of course it is possible that the lead-off hitter will only lead off in the first inning, but in the NL it is very likely that he will lead off again in the game, since he follows the pitcher. Managers will not run into outs if the pitcher is coming up with 2 outs, and defensive managers will intentionally walk the guy in the 8 hole to get to the pitcher with 2 outs and a man in scoring position, so it is more than just random variation. The lineup is engineered to attempt to get the lead-off man leading off.

Even if not leading off, he is more likely than anyone else in the lineup to be coming up with nobody on base. I think Soriano's mere 70 RBI with 33 HR is as strong evidence as you are likely to see. He only drove in 37 teammates the entire season despite a .560 slugging percentage in 579 at bats. Think about that. That might be an all time record.

Dave likes to point out how Soriano's best OPS numbers tend to come when he is hitting lead off. Personally, I think it is just as likely that he just didn't like Texas, but even if somehow Soriano has a mental issue with not hitting lead-off, his run production is so poor that his terrific OPS is effectively reduced in a major way. Soriano scored only 64 times that were not his own home run and drove in only 37 teammates. Find another .897 OPS hitter with 579 at bats with that little run production.

The "O" factor in OPS is key for a lead-off guy and the "S" factor is key for a middle of the order guy. I understand these theories to the contrary that Rob espouses, but the proof's in the pudding. Soriano is neither driving in the runs that his slugging would normally drive in nor scoring the runs that a lead-off man with that number of at bats for a contending team should score. His skills are being absolutely minimized by hitting him first. Dave and Rob will tell you that OPS is a much more telling stat than Runs and RBI's, and in most cases I would agree with them. When you decide to bat a slugger first, however, I think the resulting runs scored and runs driven in really are the telling stats.

To think that Chicago would lose 3 or 4 talented players or prospects and move DeRosa to a utility roll to bring in Roberts to do anything other than lead off just doesn't seem feasible to me.