Sun: Cubs Offer Ceden, Gallagher, Veal and maybe a 4th player - For Roberts

[davearm]

You asked why it would be acceptable to be plus-defense/minus-bat and not vice-versa.

And actually, it is easier to win a game when the opponent scores two then when they score five

And it's also easier to win when you score 7 than when you score 1.

Again, the point has not been addressed. Defense is only half of the equation, and arguably the less important one.

You can't just sit there and say, "we need good defense up the middle" and act as though that's the end of the story.

If Patterson (or a guy like him) makes up for poor defense with hitting that is 200 OPS points higher than the light hitting good glove man, then the team wins more games with Patterson than with the other guy.

[66-70-83-??]

I've always been curious about this line of thinking.

We all know Patterson is viewed as a plus bat, and a minus defender.

Why is that not acceptable, but it's acceptable to have a plus defender and a minus bat?

And why does the contender/noncontender thing make any difference?

The game is all about producing runs on offense, and preventing runs on defense. I want the guy that gives me the best differential, regardless of how he gets there.

If Patterson produces, say, 100 runs with the bat, and prevents 50 with the glove, isn't that more valuable than a guy that produces 50 and prevents 70?*

Winning 7-6 still beats losing 2-1, right?

* All numbers are illustrative and hypothetical, not predictive.

Eric Patterson is 25 yrs old.

He isn't some 19 year old phenom.

He should be ready now.

If what you say is true, why in the world would the Cubs go with Theriot or DeRosa at 2B, instead of a player (Patterson) who has a much better offensive resume'?

Patterson should be your starting 2B, then. So, the Cubs obviously don't agree with you either.

[davearm]

My intent was sarcasm, not an actual response.

I was lampooning the knee-jerk, pro-defense slant of a decent part of this board. I'd be excited about giving Patterson a shot at 2B, but I think I'm in the minority.

LOL I guess I need to have my sarcasm meter in for a tuneup then.

[theobird]

Actually you didn't answer the question at all.

Unless your answer is that the O's would, in fact, prefer to lose 2-1 than win 7-6.

The answer is: Because one error does not equal one run. In fact sometimes one error can result in 5 runs. Or more. And baseball is 99% mental. I could expound on this forever, but if you don't already get it....You never will.

[davearm]

Eric Patterson is 25 yrs old.

He isn't some 19 year old phenom.

He should be ready now.

If what you say is true, why in the world would the Cubs go with Theriot or DeRosa at 2B, instead of a player (Patterson) who has a much better offensive resume'?

Patterson should be your starting 2B, then. So, the Cubs obviously don't agree with you either.

Patterson doesn't have a better offensive resume than DeRosa.

DeRosa is already an above-average ML 2B, not to mention a known commodity.

Patterson could become an above-average ML 2B, because of his bat and despite his glove.

And above average is what the O's need to be looking for, instead of pigeonholing themselves into someone that isn't even average overall, but is good defensively.

[rolliefingers]

The answer is: Because one error does not equal one run. In fact sometimes one error can result in 5 runs. Or more. And baseball is 99% mental. I could expound on this forever, but if you don't already get it....You never will.

Also, hustle and grit and determination and other important things like that.

[davearm]

The answer is: Because one error does not equal one run. In fact sometimes one error can result in 5 runs. Or more. And baseball is 99% mental. I could expound on this forever, but if you don't already get it....You never will.

LOL, most of the time one error results in zero runs.

Regardless, answer the question. Which is better:

a) 100 runs produced with the bat, and 50 prevented with the glove, or

b) 50 runs produced and 70 prevented?

Right now the O's seem to prefer b).

[66-70-83-??]

Patterson doesn't have a better offensive resume than DeRosa.

DeRosa is already an above-average ML 2B, not to mention a known commodity.

Patterson could become an above-average ML 2B, because of his bat and despite his glove.

And above average is what the O's need to be looking for, instead of pigeonholing themselves into someone that isn't even average overall, but is good defensively.

DeRosa is firmly in the "average" category. He is not above average.

Look at WinShares, WinShares Pct, etc.. Look at what PECOTA says and he will be below average in the future.

Patterson has a much better MiL offensive resume than DeRosa had.

DeRosa certainly wasn't a known commodity at 2B before the Cubs got him.

They thought so much of Patterson that they threw DeRosa at 2B. He had never played 2B full time before. He was primarily a SS in the minors and an OF and 3B the last two years in Texas.

He wasn't exactly a "known" commodity with the bat either. The year before coming to the Cubs was the first year he got more than 400 at-bats since 1998.

The Cubs chose to experiment with a 32 yr old utility player rather than give the job to a 24 year old with an impressive minor league offensive record.

That, at the very least, raises a red flag.

[theobird]

Patterson doesn't have a better offensive resume than DeRosa.

DeRosa is already an above-average ML 2B, not to mention a known commodity.

Patterson could become an above-average ML 2B, because of his bat and despite his glove.

And above average is what the O's need to be looking for, instead of pigeonholing themselves into someone that isn't even average overall, but is good defensively.

This is another fantasy baseball prognosis. DT and AM have gone on record as saying that they have a defense first mentality. Thank goodness. They just don't care about fantasy baseball. Dave, I really think the only MI the O's want back from the Cubs is Cedeno. Cedeno paired with LH up the middle gives them a potentially excellent MI defense. I really don't think Patterson is on the AM wish list because he does not fit the profile. I am with Pappas on the idea that somewhere down the line the O's may make a play in a smaller trade to get a better offensive but still solid defensively MIfer. Somebody like Lillibridge fits that description. I think the players of interest are Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, Ceda, Veal, Colvin, marshall and of course Pie. I still think a trade happens and that it will be a two for six, Pie not included.

[davearm]

This is another fantasy baseball prognosis. DT and AM have gone on record as saying that they have a defense first mentality. Thank goodness. They just don't care about fantasy baseball. Dave, I really think the only MI the O's want back from the Cubs is Cedeno. Cedeno paired with LH up the middle gives them a potentially excellent MI defense. I really don't think Patterson is on the AM wish list because he does not fit the profile. I am with Pappas on the idea that somewhere down the line the O's may make a play in a smaller trade to get a better offensive but still solid defensively MIfer. Somebody like Lillibridge fits that description. I think the players of interest are Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, Ceda, Veal, Colvin, marshall and of course Pie. I still think a trade happens and that it will be a two for six, Pie not included.

Fantasy baseball? LOL! If weighing both offense and defense is "fantasy baseball," then what do you call your approach of ignoring offense altogether?

Still waiting for an answer to my question from post #100.

I take it from your "thank goodness" comment that you'd happily to forego 50 runs of offense for 20 runs saved on defense.

What you seem oblivious to is that you'll lose more games that way.

[CrimsonTribe]

DeRosa is firmly in the "average" category. He is not above average.

Look at WinShares, WinShares Pct, etc.. Look at what PECOTA says and he will be below average in the future.

Patterson has a much better MiL offensive resume than DeRosa had.

DeRosa certainly wasn't a known commodity at 2B before the Cubs got him.

They thought so much of Patterson that they threw DeRosa at 2B. He had never played 2B full time before. He was primarily a SS in the minors and an OF and 3B the last two years in Texas.

He wasn't exactly a "known" commodity with the bat either. The year before coming to the Cubs was the first year he got more than 400 at-bats since 1998.

The Cubs chose to experiment with a 32 yr old utility player rather than give the job to a 24 year old with an impressive minor league offensive record.

That, at the very least, raises a red flag.

The Cubs tend to raise a lot of red flags w/ their decision making. No offense to Cubs fans, but I wouldn't necessarily trust the Cubs' judgment.

[theobird]

Fantasy baseball? LOL! If weighing both offense and defense is "fantasy baseball," then what do you call your approach of ignoring offense altogether?

Still waiting for an answer to my question from post #100.

I take it from your "thank goodness" comment that you'd happily to forego 50 runs of offense for 20 runs saved on defense.

What you seem oblivious to is that you'll lose more games that way.

LOL. I have already answered your question Dave. Just in case your confused, "If you don't get it....You never will".

[66-70-83-??]

Fantasy baseball? LOL!

Still waiting for an answer to my question from post #100.

I take it from your "thank goodness" comment that you'd happily to forego 50 runs of offense for 20 runs saved on defense.

What you seem oblivious to is that you'll lose more games that way.

We get it, dave.

In theory. Theory doesn't always square with reality.

Just looking at batting stats- I would love to give Patterson a shot at 2B. To me that is the only position he really fits on the O's.

But, in reality- your beloved team doesn't look at it that way either.

If they did, if it was just a matter of run differential- Patterson would be your starting 2B. And Cedeno would be your starting SS.

[davearm]

LOL. I have already answered your question Dave. Just in case your confused, "If you don't get it....You never will".

So I've got you pegged right. You'd pay 50 runs to get 20.

If you don't immediately understand how utterly foolish this is... you never will.

[davearm]

We get it, dave.

In theory. Theory doesn't always square with reality.

Just looking at batting stats- I would love to give Patterson a shot at 2B. To me that is the only position he really fits on the O's.

But, in reality- your beloved team doesn't look at it that way either.

If they did, if it was just a matter of run differential- Patterson would be your starting 2B. And Cedeno would be your starting SS.

It's not just theory.

"You have to have strong defense up the middle" is precisely the type of antiquated and misguided stats-phobic old-school thinking that Billy Beane and his crew have been exploiting for years.

And as I said earlier, your Cubs theory falls apart quickly in light of the fact that DeRosa is already good.

Cedeno, I agree with you 100% on. He should be the Cubs' SS.