Soriano's 2007

skmsw · Post by **skmsw** » March 27 07, 1:31 pm

You know as well as anyone that OBP has a very good correlation with runs scored. Soriano's career .325 mark in that area probably isn't going to help the Cubs much.

Actually, SLG correlates slightly higher to run-scoring than OBP does. Naturally they are BOTH important -- OPS correlates higher than either -- but for instance, for the four seasons from 2003 til 2006 in the NL, the correlation between OBP and runs was .88 -- which is quite strong. The correlation between SLG and runs was .91 -- even stronger. The correlation between OPS and runs was .96 -- about as good as it gets.

That last point is an important one. If Soriano is going to put up an 875- 900 OPS instead of Juan Pierre's 620 OPS, he is going to be a tremendous help.

His incredible season last year resulted in a 132 OPS+. That's a good number, but if that's going to be his career high, he's going to leave much to be desired for a player making $16 million a season.

Maybe so, but again -- what does the salary have to do with the performance? If the salary is not going to prevent the Cubs from making other needed changes -- and it didn't -- why do we keep coming back to that?

That's 2 players projected to be above 120 (Lee and Ramirez), 4 in the 100-120 range (Soriano, Barrett, Murton/Floyd, Jones), and 2 in the sub-100 levels (Cedeno/Izturis, DeRosa).

Compare that to the Cardinals. 2 above 120 (Rolen and Pujols), 2 in the 100-120 range (Edmonds and Duncan), and 4 in the sub-100 range (Kennedy, Encarnacion, Eckstein, Molina). The Cardinals are projected to be middle-of-the-pack or worse right now.

Deeper lineups score more than star-driven ones. Four players below 100 will chip away at the effectiveness of that 170 guy more than you'd think.

robbotis · Post by **robbotis** » March 27 07, 1:41 pm

Popeye_Card wrote:
98navigator wrote:At this point, it's hard to argue against the Cubs having one of the best, if not the most potent, offense in the NL.
It's not really that hard.

Let me reiterate--the Cubs were 15th in runs scored last year in the NL. They have added Soriano over Pierre, substituted some OF AB's with Floyd, and hope to have 400 more AB's from Derrek Lee. That bumps them all the way up to #1? Now, if that's 170 OPS+ Derrek Lee and 132 OPS+ Soriano, they could be good. If it's career average Lee (123) and career average Soriano (115), then I fail to see how the Cubs will be an offensive juggernaut.

That's 2 players projected to be above 120 (Lee and Ramirez), 4 in the 100-120 range (Soriano, Barrett, Murton/Floyd, Jones), and 2 in the sub-100 levels (Cedeno/Izturis, DeRosa).

Compare that to the Cardinals. 2 above 120 (Rolen and Pujols), 2 in the 100-120 range (Edmonds and Duncan), and 4 in the sub-100 range (Kennedy, Encarnacion, Eckstein, Molina). The Cardinals are projected to be middle-of-the-pack or worse right now.

The difference is, Pujols is consitently a 170+ threat, where Lee has been there just once. If Lee reaches those levels again, the Cubs could indeed be very good. But as it stands now, the Cubs have a lot of good bats, but they're lacking a great bat or two to make it to that next level.

--P--

Precisely. The Cubs are no where near the best offense in the league. They will probably more Cardinal like than Met or Rockie like. I agree that Lee is the key. He's good, but he is not Albert. A 130+ OPS for Lee would be a great year. For Albert, not so much.

Popeye_Card · Post by **Popeye_Card** » March 27 07, 1:44 pm

skmsw wrote:
You know as well as anyone that OBP has a very good correlation with runs scored. Soriano's career .325 mark in that area probably isn't going to help the Cubs much.
Actually, SLG correlates slightly higher to run-scoring than OBP does. Naturally they are BOTH important -- OPS correlates higher than either -- but for instance, for the four seasons from 2003 til 2006 in the NL, the correlation between OBP and runs was .88 -- which is quite strong. The correlation between SLG and runs was .91 -- even stronger. The correlation between OPS and runs was .96 -- about as good as it gets.

That last point is an important one. If Soriano is going to put up an 875- 900 OPS instead of Juan Pierre's 620 OPS, he is going to be a tremendous help.

His incredible season last year resulted in a 132 OPS+. That's a good number, but if that's going to be his career high, he's going to leave much to be desired for a player making $16 million a season.
Maybe so, but again -- what does the salary have to do with the performance? If the salary is not going to prevent the Cubs from making other needed changes -- and it didn't -- why do we keep coming back to that?

Pierre was actually at .718 last year. His 4.42 RC/27 last year is certainly a tick below Soriano's 5.84 career average. That's about a run and a half per game for his spot in the lineup. 1.5*162/9 = 27 more runs for the Cubs. Is it that big of impact? Even using his 2006 numbers, it's 44 runs. Positive impact? Yes. Enough to make the Cubs a great offense? I don't think so.

The Cubs made plenty of changes. Plenty of expensive, long-term commitments. Even the sum total of which don't point to a great team, IMO. Why does it keep coming back to that? Because at some point the spending will end. It most likely already has. And they still don't have a championship caliber club on paper, and they won't for a long time with all of those long-term commitments in place. That's why it comes back to the money. Teams do not spend their way to championships--they never have.

--P--

Post by **Bo Hart** » March 27 07, 1:49 pm

When I first saw the signing I thought Soriano was grossly overpaid and thought it was a horrible contract.

However, because of the fact that he is now playing centerfield, it instantly becomes much more credible. He now will become a top 3-5 centerfielder in the game now -- not based on his defense, but based on his positional production. And yeah, the fact that they have Pie might lead to some conflicts, but they'll work something out.

With that said, I don't necessarily think it's a great contract. It just takes it from a "bad" to an "OK" one. His OBP still sucks (which doesn't help an OBP-starved ballclub), and and seven years is too long for a 31-year-old (even if he's an athletic guy that might age better than most). And let's face it: he has an .835 career OPS. This is not the elite, juggernaut hitter the media makes him out to be.

Does Soriano help the team? Definitely. Can the Cubs absorb a contract like that more than most teams? Without a doubt. But I still stand firm in saying that this is not "good" signing.

And of course, this post is free of bias (third post).

98navigator · Post by **98navigator** » March 27 07, 1:50 pm

Popeye_Card wrote:
98navigator wrote:At this point, it's hard to argue against the Cubs having one of the best, if not the most potent, offense in the NL.
It's not really that hard.

Let me reiterate--the Cubs were 15th in runs scored last year in the NL. They have added Soriano over Pierre, substituted some OF AB's with Floyd, and hope to have 400 more AB's from Derrek Lee. That bumps them all the way up to #1? Now, if that's 170 OPS+ Derrek Lee and 132 OPS+ Soriano, they could be good. If it's career average Lee (123) and career average Soriano (115), then I fail to see how the Cubs will be an offensive juggernaut.

That's 2 players projected to be above 120 (Lee and Ramirez), 4 in the 100-120 range (Soriano, Barrett, Murton/Floyd, Jones), and 2 in the sub-100 levels (Cedeno/Izturis, DeRosa).

Compare that to the Cardinals. 2 above 120 (Rolen and Pujols), 2 in the 100-120 range (Edmonds and Duncan), and 4 in the sub-100 range (Kennedy, Encarnacion, Eckstein, Molina). The Cardinals are projected to be middle-of-the-pack or worse right now.

The difference is, Pujols is consitently a 170+ threat, where Lee has been there just once. If Lee reaches those levels again, the Cubs could indeed be very good. But as it stands now, the Cubs have a lot of good bats, but they're lacking a great bat or two to make it to that next level.

--P--

You can continue to compare last year to 2007 but they aren't comparable because of a change in personnel (both on the field and at the helm) and a change in offensive strategy. Even PECOTA's Nate Silver recognizes that a change in management is a net positive for the team.

Spring Training or not, Lou Piniella and Gerald Perry's philosophy about OBP not equating to batting average has taken hold. Power numbers and batting average may be inflated in the Cactus League but the ability to take a walk shows discipline. Ronny Cedeno, who walked all of 17 times in 150+ games last year, has 10 walks in the CL--and that's after having a really sub par first week and a half before Lou pulled him aside and told him he needed to start taking walks and hit the ball to right field if he planned on making the team. Others are noticeably more patient as well. Whether or not it all translates into the Regular Season is yet to be seen but being this close to the start of things provides optimism especially when you consider that most teams start really playing full squads the last 2 weeks -10 days of camp.

Also, I usually don't put stock in projections but the overwhelming majority show the Cubs offense as one of the best. The biggest question mark is the starting pitching.

Cronos · Post by **Cronos** » March 27 07, 1:51 pm

Popeye_Card wrote: Why does it keep coming back to that? Because at some point the spending will end. It most likely already has.

Especially if they don't end up signing Zambrano to a contract before Spring Training ends; I haven't heard or read anything about it being any closer, and the deadline of the beginning of the season(set by Zambrano) is approaching.

robbotis · Post by **robbotis** » March 27 07, 1:52 pm

98navigator wrote:The biggest question mark is the starting pitching.

I think this question mark was answered with the signing of Jason Marquis.

skmsw · Post by **skmsw** » March 27 07, 1:54 pm

That's about a run and a half per game for his spot in the lineup. 1.5*162/9 = 27 more runs for the Cubs. Is it that big of impact? Even using his 2006 numbers, it's 44 runs.

The Cubs scored what, 715 runs in 2006? I would not be so quick to just dismiss a 4-6% increase coming from just one new guy; using nothing more than your analysis, Soriano over Pierre single-handedly makes them some 3 to 5 wins better. That's a pretty productive addition.

Now, the question of whether the Cubs are an elite offense is a separate question, and one I have not considered at all here. My only point is, whether the Cubs overspent or not, they added a player who is very likely to help them -- a player who, using your own math, is likely to help a lot.

98navigator · Post by **98navigator** » March 27 07, 1:59 pm

robbotis wrote:
98navigator wrote:The biggest question mark is the starting pitching.
I think this question mark was answered with the signing of Jason Marquis.

That has yet to be determined. His presence didn't prevent the Cardinals from reaching the postseason and I'm certainly not going to fret about him.

Post by **Bo Hart** » March 27 07, 2:01 pm

Cronos69 wrote:Especially if they don't end up signing Zambrano to a contract before Spring Training ends; I haven't heard or read anything about it being any closer, and the deadline of the beginning of the season(set by Zambrano) is approaching.

Zambrano came out the next day and said we misheard him. I think he basically said, "I would prefer to get something done, but it doesn't eliminate them from the running if we don't get something worked out."