TSN's Deveney's Take on Roberts-Cubs

[YardBirds13]

To jump in here:

I don't think that because a team's FO think something or that it's been used in baseball for 150 years makes something right.

However, I DO think the Cubs are wasting Soriano's value batting him lead-off. Especially in the NL, it seems to me you don't want a power hitter leading off, due to the simple fact the the worst (BY FAR, not like in the AL) hitter in the line-up bats before him, and will rarely ever be on base to be knocked in.

I don't know all the behind the scenes stuff that went on there like maybe Dave or Rob, our resident Cubs guys do, but just seems to me that batting Soriano 4th or 5th makes way more sense than batting him 1st.

I just don't see how it doesn't, and really not trying to be condescending, but why bat him lead-off? I don't get it.

[StunninSteve]

To jump in here:

I don't think that because a team's FO think something or that it's been used in baseball for 150 years makes something right.

However, I DO think the Cubs are wasting Soriano's value batting him lead-off. Especially in the NL, it seems to me you don't want a power hitter leading off, due to the simple fact the the worst (BY FAR, not like in the AL) hitter in the line-up bats before him, and will rarely ever be on base to be knocked in.

I don't know all the behind the scenes stuff that went on there like maybe Dave or Rob, our resident Cubs guys do, but just seems to me that batting Soriano 4th or 5th makes way more sense than batting him 1st.

I just don't see how it doesn't, and really not trying to be condescending, but why bat him lead-off? I don't get it.

I've questioned that for the past couple years. There is no reason whatsoever to have Soriano bat leadoff he should be right in front of or right after Lee IMO...

[yestheydo]

To jump in here:

I don't think that because a team's FO think something or that it's been used in baseball for 150 years makes something right.

However, I DO think the Cubs are wasting Soriano's value batting him lead-off. Especially in the NL, it seems to me you don't want a power hitter leading off, due to the simple fact the the worst (BY FAR, not like in the AL) hitter in the line-up bats before him, and will rarely ever be on base to be knocked in.

I don't know all the behind the scenes stuff that went on there like maybe Dave or Rob, our resident Cubs guys do, but just seems to me that batting Soriano 4th or 5th makes way more sense than batting him 1st.

I just don't see how it doesn't, and really not trying to be condescending, but why bat him lead-off? I don't get it.

First, it's his choice. He believes he'll see more fastballs, he likes to get more plate appearances. It's supposedly part of the reason he was willing to sign as quickly as he did. His career splits are better leading off than anywhere else in the lineup. He hits best with the bases empty, for whatever reason.

The rationale is there, although if it were up to me, they'd move him to center and bat him fifth anyway, opening up all sorts of possibilities.

[davearm]

Soriano's career splits:

[u]Position        PA    AVG   OBP   SLG   OPS  OPS+[/u]Batting 1st   2804   .295  .341  .551  .892  111Batting 3rd    687   .260  .310  .452  .762   82Batting 4th     44   .195  .227  .390  .617   45Batting 5th    626   .268  .312  .513  .825   95

I think those numbers argue pretty strongly for letting Soriano hit where he feels most comfortable.

And don't get bogged down trying to figure out why things are the way they are. It doesn't really matter.

[DeanMW]

Soriano's career splits:

[u]Position        PA    AVG   OBP   SLG   OPS  OPS+[/u]Batting 4th     44   .195  .227  .390  .617   45

Small sample size alert. Don't see how 10 games worth of appearances could conceivably be used to jusify not hitting him in the 4 slot.

[Rob H]

I'll go with the Cubs FO and the last 150 years of baseball thinking over your theory, thank you very much. Condescending statements like the bolded one above will certainly not do much to convince me of anything. If you want to think that batting a slugger with a low on-base percentage lead-off in the first inning and after the pitcher the rest of the game rather than a high on-base guy, knock yourself out. To me, doing that reduces Soriano's value to the team and creates a weakness in the lineup, as was very evident in the playoffs last year. I'm just saying that the Cubs FO clearly disagrees with you and frankly, that is what matters.

People thought the earth was flat for a long time too. Conventional wisdom isn't necessarily right, it's just more easily accepted. If you're basing your argument on the intelligence of the Cubs FO, you're in trouble already.

Now you may end up being right in that the Cubs want Roberts because he can bat at the top of the order. But that doesn't make your theory right. It just means the Cubs don't understand the engine of baseball... hardly a surprising development, considering multi year contracts for the likes of Neifi Perez... or even paying $136 mil for Soriano, a very good, but not elite player.

But let's take this opportunity to make a couple valuable points:

1.) Picking the right sample size is imperative. It is impossible to learn anything about the value of players over a limited sample size. The Cubs playoff failures mean nothing besides the fact that the team was cold. It doesn't mean the lineup was badly arranged, it doesn't mean that the players can't perform "in the clutch", it doesn't mean that the manager doesn't call enough bunts. A few games means nothing. You'll be hard pressed to learn anything significant on less than a half season's worth of play. And even claims staked on that amount of information are highly dubious.

2.) There can be a significant difference between the best possible lineup and the worst possible lineup. However, nobody comes remotely close to fielding the worst lineup (pitcher first, next worst hitter 2nd, etc...). As is, the difference between the conventional lineups and the ideal lineups is very, very small. Therefore, hitters are valuable because they get on base (and slug), not because of where they bat in the lineup.

And while we're at it...

3.) The closer is a hugely overrated invention of modern baseball. Your best relief pitcher should come in the game during what is likely the highest leverage situation in the game... which may, or may not be, the 9th inning. I'd much rather bring my relief ace in during the 7th inning with the bases juiced and one out in a tie game than hold onto him and hope that we have a lead in the 9th.

[davearm]

Small sample size alert. Don't see how 10 games worth of appearances could conceivably be used to jusify not hitting him in the 4 slot.

Well that's a bizarre thing to take away from my post.

I just put the #4 numbers in there because I knew someone would ask if I left them out.

So you seem to be of the opinion that hitting 4th is significantly different from hitting 3rd or 5th, such that Soriano's lackluster production (over a large sample size) from those slots should be disregarded as unrepresentative?

I'd have to respectfully disagree there.

[Number5]

Soriano's career splits:

[u]Position        PA    AVG   OBP   SLG   OPS  OPS+[/u]Batting 1st   2804   .295  .341  .551  .892  111Batting 3rd    687   .260  .310  .452  .762   82Batting 4th     44   .195  .227  .390  .617   45Batting 5th    626   .268  .312  .513  .825   95

I think those numbers argue pretty strongly for letting Soriano hit where he feels most comfortable.

And don't get bogged down trying to figure out why things are the way they are. It doesn't really matter.

Statistics sure can be manipulated to say what we want, can't they? Those selected partial numbers can just as easily be attributed to the facts that he did not bat lead-off in is first years with the Yankees before his breakout and that batting in the Washington lineup gave him less protection than his breakout years in New York and currently in Chicago. Heck, in Washington he actually got 67 walks because he was in a power spot with less protection behind him. Yet he scored far more runs and drove in far more runs. I'm not getting how you can think 2007 was superior to 2006 for Soriano. Batting average, maybe, but certainly not run production. I notice you chose to leave run production stats out of the table. Wonder why.

I would submit that slugging .513 hitting fifth, and even .452 hitting third translates into more runs for the team (and therefore more wins) than slugging .551 hitting first. This is especially true in the National League. A .551 slugging percentage is wasted at that spot in the NL. Hence last year's numbers.

The fact is that his OBP was .337 last year with the Cubs, which to me is far more relevant than what he did for the Yankees six years ago. Additionally he scored 97 runs last year, 33 of which were on his own home runs. He was driven in a total of 64 times by his teammates. And we are talking some excellent hitters coming up behind him. These are not the numbers of a great lead-off man. On top of that, he drove in 70 runs with 33 home runs. That is hard to do. Twist your stats however you want, but to have driven in a grand total of 37 men that were not himself gives every indication to me that he needs to be somewhere else in the lineup. To me, Soriano gave Chicago the minimum run production possible, given his performance at the plate, because he was batting first in the order. Yet per your chart above, his season would look great, with his .560 slugging percentage.

This is not a knock on Soriano. He plays for any team in baseball. He would bat in a spot where his slugging can drive in some runs for most of them, however.

Like I said, I've seen this on many blogs. Some Cub fans asserting that there is no need to have the lead-off man have a high OBP. I don't believe that it is really the view of most Cub fans that who leads off doesn't matter, only a very vocal few. Traditional thinking is not always right, but in my view it certainly is when it comes to wanting a lead-off man that can get on base, get in scoring position, and score; and wanting a guy with a .560 slugging percentage hitting somewhere in the lineup that it does some good. Dave and Rob's theories and statistics notwithstanding.

I'm actually a Cub fan myself, second to my Birds. I went to school in Evanston and attended many Cub games. They had a real good team then, but always seemed fall just short to the Rose-Morgan-Bench-Perez Reds. Billy Williams was runner-up to Bench for the MVP at least once that I recall. The Cubs did have a pretty good lead-off man in Jose Cardenal. So when I say that the Cubs need to move Soriano to a different spot in the lineup, I'm speaking with my heart as well as my head.

[davearm]

Statistics sure can be manipulated to say what we want, can't they? Those selected partial numbers can just as easily be attributed to the facts that he did not bat lead-off in is first years with the Yankees before his breakout and that batting in the Washington lineup gave him less protection than his breakout years in New York and currently in Chicago. Heck, in Washington he actually got 67 walks because he was in a power spot with less protection behind him. Yet he scored far more runs and drove in far more runs. I'm not getting how you can think 2007 was superior to 2006 for Soriano. Batting average, maybe, but certainly not run production. I notice you chose to leave run production stats out of the table. Wonder why..

Soriano's 2000 and 2001 stats before his breakout with the Yankees are not shown at all. He batted down in the order those years (7/8/9). I left those stats out because obviously nobody is advocating that he hit at the bottom of the Cubs' order, but since you asked, his career OPSs from those spots are .819, .776, and .754 respectively (in 76, 234, and 309 plate appearances).

When Soriano had his breakout year in 2002, he hit leadoff in 724 of 741 PAs.

Not sure what your point is regarding 2006, because he hit from the leadoff spot the majority of that year (610 of 727 PAs).

I did not show run production numbers because anyone with just a rudimentary comprehension of baseball recognizes that those statistics are unreliable since they're dependent on many factors out of the hitter's control.

I would submit that slugging .513 hitting fifth, and even .452 hitting third translates into more runs for the team (and therefore more wins) than slugging .551 hitting first. This is especially true in the National League. A .551 slugging percentage is wasted at that spot in the NL. Hence last year's numbers.

Soriano batting leadoff and putting up his career line from that spot is going to generate more runs than any lineup that has him elsewhere, putting up his significantly lower career lines from those spots. You just are not going to make up a 100+ point loss in OPS by shuffling guys around.

The fact is that his OBP was .337 last year with the Cubs, which to me is far more relevant than what he did for the Yankees six years ago. Additionally he scored 97 runs last year, 33 of which were on his own home runs. He was driven in a total of 64 times by his teammates. And we are talking some excellent hitters coming up behind him. These are not the numbers of a great lead-off man. On top of that, he drove in 70 runs with 33 home runs. That is hard to do. Twist your stats however you want, but to have driven in a grand total of 37 men that were not himself gives every indication to me that he needs to be somewhere else in the lineup. To me, Soriano gave Chicago the minimum run production possible, given his performance at the plate, because he was batting first in the order. Yet per your chart above, his season would look great, with his .560 slugging percentage.

This is not a knock on Soriano. He plays for any team in baseball. He would bat in a spot where his slugging can drive in some runs for most of them, however.

Like I said, I've seen this on many blogs. Some Cub fans asserting that there is no need to have the lead-off man have a high OBP. I don't believe that it is really the view of most Cub fans that who leads off doesn't matter, only a very vocal few. Traditional thinking is not always right, but in my view it certainly is when it comes to wanting a lead-off man that can get on base, get in scoring position, and score; and wanting a guy with a .560 slugging percentage hitting somewhere in the lineup that it does some good. Dave and Rob's theories and statistics notwithstanding.

See the last point. Soriano's power would certainly be better utilized if he could generate his same overall production elsewhere in the lineup. But the numbers illustrate he doesn't generate his same overall production elsewhere in the lineup.

Therefore the Cubs are correct to hit him first and live with his unspectacular OBP and his "wasted" HRs, when the alternative is to cut into his OBP and his SLG production by hitting him elsewhere. As I said earlier, you don't make up for that loss by tinkering with the batting order.

No matter how much you try, 20 HRs and a .800 OPS from the #5 spot will not generate more team runs than will 30 HRs and a .900 OPS from the leadoff spot.

[Number5]

Well, Dave, we will just have to agree to disagree. To me, batting Soriano first is a criminal waste of his slugging and changes him from a power middle-of-the-order hitter with the bonus of speed to a mediocre lead-off man that will hit you a bunch of solo home runs. I have read and understood what you have said. I simply disagree, and I am sure that you have read, understood, and disagree with what I have said. I stand corrected if Soriano hit lead-off most of 2006 for Washington. I seem to remember him hitting 3-4-5 for them, but will take what you have said as accurate.

[Bloopandablast]

Statistics sure can be manipulated to say what we want, can't they? Those selected partial numbers can just as easily be attributed to the facts that he did not bat lead-off in is first years with the Yankees before his breakout and that batting in the Washington lineup gave him less protection than his breakout years in New York and currently in Chicago. Heck, in Washington he actually got 67 walks because he was in a power spot with less protection behind him. Yet he scored far more runs and drove in far more runs. I'm not getting how you can think 2007 was superior to 2006 for Soriano. Batting average, maybe, but certainly not run production. I notice you chose to leave run production stats out of the table. Wonder why.

I would submit that slugging .513 hitting fifth, and even .452 hitting third translates into more runs for the team (and therefore more wins) than slugging .551 hitting first. This is especially true in the National League. A .551 slugging percentage is wasted at that spot in the NL. Hence last year's numbers.

The fact is that his OBP was .337 last year with the Cubs, which to me is far more relevant than what he did for the Yankees six years ago. Additionally he scored 97 runs last year, 33 of which were on his own home runs. He was driven in a total of 64 times by his teammates. And we are talking some excellent hitters coming up behind him. These are not the numbers of a great lead-off man. On top of that, he drove in 70 runs with 33 home runs. That is hard to do. Twist your stats however you want, but to have driven in a grand total of 37 men that were not himself gives every indication to me that he needs to be somewhere else in the lineup. To me, Soriano gave Chicago the minimum run production possible, given his performance at the plate, because he was batting first in the order. Yet per your chart above, his season would look great, with his .560 slugging percentage.

This is not a knock on Soriano. He plays for any team in baseball. He would bat in a spot where his slugging can drive in some runs for most of them, however.

Like I said, I've seen this on many blogs. Some Cub fans asserting that there is no need to have the lead-off man have a high OBP. I don't believe that it is really the view of most Cub fans that who leads off doesn't matter, only a very vocal few. Traditional thinking is not always right, but in my view it certainly is when it comes to wanting a lead-off man that can get on base, get in scoring position, and score; and wanting a guy with a .560 slugging percentage hitting somewhere in the lineup that it does some good. Dave and Rob's theories and statistics notwithstanding.

I'm actually a Cub fan myself, second to my Birds. I went to school in Evanston and attended many Cub games. They had a real good team then, but always seemed fall just short to the Rose-Morgan-Bench-Perez Reds. Billy Williams was runner-up to Bench for the MVP at least once that I recall. The Cubs did have a pretty good lead-off man in Jose Cardenal. So when I say that the Cubs need to move Soriano to a different spot in the lineup, I'm speaking with my heart as well as my head.

Well your heart must have been a bit misleading then since the Reds were in the old NL West and the Cubs were in the East. The Cubs struggled with the Pirates, Mets and Cardinals back then. The Reds rival was the Dodgers.

While Cardenal played for the Cubbies my recollection is that he came somewhat later and would have overlapped Billy Williams very little in playing for the Cubs. Kessinger was often the leadoff man back in the day with Beckert second, Wiliiams batted 3rd.

But what do I know.

[SportsWorld]

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=131376

Contrary to popular belief, knowledgeable Cubs sources say the two teams have not gotten serious about discussing specific players the Orioles would want for Roberts.

It's highly unlikely the Cubs will trade center-field prospect Felix Pie or former top draft pick Tyler Colvin for Roberts. But a package possibly involving pitcher Sean Marshall or Sean Gallagher plus another player seems more in the ballpark.

During the Cubs convention last month, manager Lou Piniella said he didn't believe the Cubs would get Roberts. Piniella also expressed his pleasure with incumbent second baseman Mark DeRosa, who would be moved to a super-utility role if Roberts comes to Chicago.

At this point, Hendry also seems resigned to moving on without Roberts if he and MacPhail can't agree on a deal.

[Baroquen131]

That's either spin, and talks are more serious than that indicates. Or, perhaps more likely, it's accurate reporting that while the Cubs might like to add Roberts, the two clubs aren't really the best of fits for this deal.

/shrug... Guess we'll see shortly. (Or in MacPhailese - by October.:002_stongue: )

[The Rick]

Here we go again!

[Peace21]

My source told me, if Roberts isnt traded in the next three weeks, than Roberts will likely be dealt at the deadline.