pierre

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Lee Barton

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 6:31:52 PM11/11/05
to
overpaid and overated so we will get him for sure


Johnson

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 8:40:30 PM11/11/05
to
A guy with 50 steals a year is overrated?

Chuck Hildebrandt

unread,
Nov 13, 2005, 2:35:36 PM11/13/05
to
"Johnson" <northf...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1131759630.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>A guy with 50 steals a year is overrated?
>
>

Actually -- yes. This particularly guy with the 50 steals is overrated.
Pierre hits for no power (147 of his 181 hits in 2005 were singles), which
is not insignificant, and his OBP is below league average, which is a deadly
attribute for someone entrusted with leading off. He is actually worse than
Scott Podsednik, who himself is wildly overrated.

I would be disappointed if the Cubs picked up Pierre (or Podsednik, for that
matter), but then, he is exactly the kind of guy Hendry and Dusty like, so
it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen.

Chuck


The Gnorkmeister

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 1:23:25 AM11/14/05
to

Johnson wrote:
> A guy with 50 steals a year is overrated?

Corollary: A person who thinks a steal number in and of itself is
indicative of high value is stupid.

Roto Daddy

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 5:41:18 AM11/14/05
to

"Chuck Hildebrandt" <mcm...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:cAMdf.7404$Y61....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

Pierre is probably a little overpaid, but he has had a good OBP prior to
last year. He had OBP's above .360 in three of the 4 years before that. I
don't understand the total lack of respect for what he brings to the table.
Sure he has no power, but then we can stick with Corey if we want that. His
arm is weak, but that flaw is lessened slightly by playing in Wrigley. Juan
Pierre is not a great player, but he does have a track record of very good
on base skills. He is a short term answer that would fill the CF and
lead-off hole without blocking Pie long term. To me he looks like a very
good option in the Cubs' current situation. This newsgroup acts like he is
Tom Goodwin.


OtisCleetusChicken

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 9:41:11 AM11/14/05
to
regardless of his numbers- 200 hits at the top of the lineup is what the
cubs need. cant argue that - i think it would be a nice change to see
someone like that in our line up thats last name isnt Lee or Ramirez.

Venkatesh Natarajan

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 10:26:12 AM11/14/05
to

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Roto Daddy wrote:

> on base skills. He is a short term answer that would fill the CF and
> lead-off hole without blocking Pie long term. To me he looks like a very

The problem isn't that he's a bad player so much as that actually
getting Pierre might *cost* Pie.

Venk

David the Nationals Fan

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 10:44:45 AM11/14/05
to

Actually it can be argued that Pierre is not all that valuable. His
OBP last season was below the comprable league average. He may well
get "hits" becuase he doesn't know how to take a walk, but that does
not make him valuable to a team. That being said, if you are building
a team for Dusty, he's a good choice. He's exactly the kind of player
with the skills that Dusty values (hits) and with the weaknesses (low
OBP, failure to take walks) that Dusty values.

As for his fielding, he's a bit below league average for range factor
and does not have a good arm, but he catches the balls hit right to him
and thus has a fielding percentage which is high (and to Dusty that's
the number that matters).

If the Cubs are building a team to try to win with Dusty, he's the
right move. If the Cubs are trying to build a team to win with a good
manager who maximizes talent, he's a bad move. And since the Cubs are
trying to build a team to win with Dusty, its the right move, even if
it costs the Cubs Pie and Sing.

Johnson

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 2:18:05 PM11/14/05
to
"Actually it can be argued that Pierre is not all that valuable. His
OBP last season was below the comprable league average. He may well
get "hits" becuase he doesn't know how to take a walk, but that does
not make him valuable to a team. That being said, if you are building
a team for Dusty, he's a good choice. He's exactly the kind of player
with the skills that Dusty values (hits) and with the weaknesses (low
OBP, failure to take walks) that Dusty values. "


Pierre has a lifetime OBP over .350, second only to Lee. His career BA
is over .300. While he doesn't take walks, he also stole 57 bases last
season, with 267 SB over 5 years. He is a perenial stolen base leader,
and very fundamentally sound.

His only weakness is the lack of walks and a weak arm, but this is made
up for by getting to and catching balls no one else can, and his
freakish SB numbers. The Cubs don't have fundamentally sound players
like him ,except for Lee, Cedeno and Murton.


"If the Cubs are building a team to try to win with Dusty, he's the
right move. If the Cubs are trying to build a team to win with a good
manager who maximizes talent, he's a bad move. And since the Cubs are
trying to build a team to win with Dusty, its the right move, even if
it costs the Cubs Pie and Sing. "


Pie is already struggling. I think we can get Pierre for someone other
than Pie though. Dopirak and Sing would be well worth it.

David the Nationals Fan

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 3:15:58 PM11/14/05
to

Johnson wrote:
> "Actually it can be argued that Pierre is not all that valuable. His
> OBP last season was below the comprable league average. He may well
> get "hits" becuase he doesn't know how to take a walk, but that does
> not make him valuable to a team. That being said, if you are building
> a team for Dusty, he's a good choice. He's exactly the kind of player
> with the skills that Dusty values (hits) and with the weaknesses (low
> OBP, failure to take walks) that Dusty values. "
>
>
> Pierre has a lifetime OBP over .350, second only to Lee. His career BA
> is over .300. While he doesn't take walks, he also stole 57 bases last
> season, with 267 SB over 5 years. He is a perenial stolen base leader,
> and very fundamentally sound.

And he has a game which "depends upon speed" and that is the type of
player that ages very badly and tend to disappear much earlier than
players of any other type.

His K's were up 25% last year. He was caught stealing 17 times and,
over all, steals at only a 73% clip. That's not a "negative", but the
number of times caught stealing somewhat negate the value of the
steals. In the "stolen base" game, rate is important, but so to is
percentage of being caught.

> His only weakness is the lack of walks and a weak arm, but this is made
> up for by getting to and catching balls no one else can,

That's not what the numbers say. The numbers say that his "range",
which measures the number of balls that he gets to and catches, is, for
his career, a little over league average, and in 2005 a little under
league average. He is certainly an upgrade over Hairston, Patterson
and Macias in CF, but he is not worth anything like the money or
prospects that he will cost and he will be a net minus very soon. Even
at this "late" date in his career, Kenny Lofton has more range in CF.

Unknown

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 4:07:55 PM11/14/05
to
On 14 Nov 2005 12:15:58 -0800, "David the Nationals Fan"
<davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Johnson wrote:
>> "Actually it can be argued that Pierre is not all that valuable.

Yeah, his Ks went from 35 to 45 in 719 TPAs. If his Ks go up another
25% in 2006, he will still strike out less than 10% of the time. And
he walked just about as many times as he struck out...and you gripe
because he doesn't walk.

By the way, Lofton struck out twice as frequently as Pierre last year.
He had 41 in 300 fewer ABs.

--John A.

Unknown

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 4:11:43 PM11/14/05
to
On 14 Nov 2005 12:15:58 -0800, "David the Nationals Fan"
<davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>His K's were up 25% last year.

Somehow my attribution got fouled up. I'll try it again:

Unknown

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 4:23:06 PM11/14/05
to
On 14 Nov 2005 12:15:58 -0800, "David the Nationals Fan"
<davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Johnson wrote:
>> "Actually it can be argued that Pierre is not all that valuable. His
>> OBP last season was below the comprable league average. He may well
>> get "hits" becuase he doesn't know how to take a walk, but that does
>> not make him valuable to a team. That being said, if you are building
>> a team for Dusty, he's a good choice. He's exactly the kind of player
>> with the skills that Dusty values (hits) and with the weaknesses (low
>> OBP, failure to take walks) that Dusty values. "
>>
>>
>> Pierre has a lifetime OBP over .350, second only to Lee. His career BA
>> is over .300. While he doesn't take walks, he also stole 57 bases last
>> season, with 267 SB over 5 years. He is a perenial stolen base leader,
>> and very fundamentally sound.
>
>And he has a game which "depends upon speed" and that is the type of
>player that ages very badly and tend to disappear much earlier than
>players of any other type.

He is only 28! A better argument could be made that he is still
learning the game.

>His K's were up 25% last year. He was caught stealing 17 times and,
>over all, steals at only a 73% clip. That's not a "negative", but the
>number of times caught stealing somewhat negate the value of the
>steals. In the "stolen base" game, rate is important, but so to is
>percentage of being caught.

Career season averages: .305 AVG, .355 OBP, 100 R, 51 SB, 199 H. He
played on a dysfunctional Marlins team last year who had several key
players who tanked big time. Now, tell me again what there is not to
like about this guy?



>> His only weakness is the lack of walks and a weak arm, but this is made
>> up for by getting to and catching balls no one else can,
>
>That's not what the numbers say. The numbers say that his "range",
>which measures the number of balls that he gets to and catches, is, for
>his career, a little over league average, and in 2005 a little under
>league average. He is certainly an upgrade over Hairston, Patterson
>and Macias in CF, but he is not worth anything like the money or
>prospects that he will cost and he will be a net minus very soon. Even
>at this "late" date in his career, Kenny Lofton has more range in CF.

Don't know where that comes from, but it is complete crap. Lofton's
range has decreased dramatically in the past couple of years and his
arm was below average to begin with.

--John A.

David the Nationals Fan

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 5:02:23 PM11/14/05
to

John A. wrote:

>
> Yeah, his Ks went from 35 to 45 in 719 TPAs. If his Ks go up another
> 25% in 2006, he will still strike out less than 10% of the time. And
> he walked just about as many times as he struck out...and you gripe
> because he doesn't walk.
>
> By the way, Lofton struck out twice as frequently as Pierre last year.
> He had 41 in 300 fewer ABs.

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that the increase in K's
shows that Pierre is becoming less successful at the things that he
does "well" (i.e. put the ball in play for a hit) while not improving
on the things that he does not do well. Would Pierre be an "upgrade"
over the guys that will likely be available to, and will be played by
Dusty? Yes. (I'd have Hairston hit lead off.... ) Is Pierre worth
the amount of money and the prospects that he will cost? No. Unless
you are convinced that he was the "one" piece missing from the puzzle
last season and by putting him in the Cubs become the prohibitive
favorites to win the World Series. Trading young players to get Pierre
is tantamount to going out, killing and cooking, all of the hens that
lay eggs in order to make one big meal. It had better be a good one,
becuase you won't be seeing any eggs for a long long time.

Pierre is going to be very very expensive, and his value is going to
drop significantly over the next few years.

David the Nationals Fan

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 5:03:23 PM11/14/05
to

John A. wrote:

> Career season averages: .305 AVG, .355 OBP, 100 R, 51 SB, 199 H. He
> played on a dysfunctional Marlins team last year who had several key
> players who tanked big time. Now, tell me again what there is not to
> like about this guy?

He doesn't hit for power, he doesn't take walks, he has no arm, he has
a range factor which is not outstanding and he gets thrown out too
much. He's worth having on your team but not for the salary that he
will command.

>
> Don't know where that comes from, but it is complete crap. Lofton's
> range has decreased dramatically in the past couple of years and his
> arm was below average to begin with.

Ranage factor doesn't look at the Arm. And yes, Lofton's range has
decreased, but so has Pierre's, and Lofton came from a much higher
level.

Here are the cold facts:

Pierre's career (6 years)

Pierre's RF LeagueRF Pierre Dif
2.34 2.24 +.1
2.38 2.18 +.2
2.45 2.13 +.32
2.53 2.14 +.39
2.27 2.26 +.01
2.12 2.15 -.03

Lofton's last six years (CF)

Lofton RF LeagueRF Lofton Dif Advantage
2.61 2.44 +.17 Lofton (.07)
2.41 2.39 +.04 Pierre (.16)
2.59 2.37 +.22 Pierre (.10)
2.37 2.14 + .23 Pierre (.16)
2.54 2.35 + .19 Lofton (.18)
2.14 2.15 -.01 Lofton (.02)

Has Lofton fallen off? You bet. Will he likely get worse. Yup.
He's been heading down relative to the league for the past 3 years and
is now below league average. The problem is that Pierre has ALSO been
heading down for the past three years and is now below league average.

Again, they both would likely be improvements, but the question is how
much of an improvement and at what cost. I think Pierre is not much
of an improvement and costs to much, you disagree. Okay. We
disagree. But I would like you to try to tell me, in the context of
the numbers, why Pierre should suddenly be the second or third highest
paid Postion Player on the team. He's not nearly that valuable.

Unknown

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 5:31:04 PM11/14/05
to
On 14 Nov 2005 14:02:23 -0800, "David the Nationals Fan"
<davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>John A. wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, his Ks went from 35 to 45 in 719 TPAs. If his Ks go up another
>> 25% in 2006, he will still strike out less than 10% of the time. And
>> he walked just about as many times as he struck out...and you gripe
>> because he doesn't walk.
>>
>> By the way, Lofton struck out twice as frequently as Pierre last year.
>> He had 41 in 300 fewer ABs.
>
>Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that the increase in K's
>shows that Pierre is becoming less successful at the things that he
>does "well" (i.e. put the ball in play for a hit) while not improving
>on the things that he does not do well.

It doesn't show that at all, David. One of the things that has been
most impressive about Pierre is his ability to adjust to whatever
pitching strategy is used against him.

Pierre has always been a slash and dash hitter and he wore out teams
by serving pitches to left field. Last year, teams adjusted by
busting him inside with hard stuff. He struggled for awhile and then
started turning on that pitch and pulling it in the hole between first
and second. From that point on, he was pretty much the same player he
was in 2004.

>Would Pierre be an "upgrade"
>over the guys that will likely be available to, and will be played by
>Dusty? Yes. (I'd have Hairston hit lead off.... ) Is Pierre worth
>the amount of money and the prospects that he will cost? No. Unless
>you are convinced that he was the "one" piece missing from the puzzle
>last season and by putting him in the Cubs become the prohibitive
>favorites to win the World Series. Trading young players to get Pierre
>is tantamount to going out, killing and cooking, all of the hens that
>lay eggs in order to make one big meal. It had better be a good one,
>becuase you won't be seeing any eggs for a long long time.

Since neither you nor I know what it would take to get Pierre, this is
all meaningless speculation on your part. Pierre or a player like him
is an extremely important piece of the puzzle. All 8 playoff teams
last year had solid leadoff hitters,

To put it another way, the one lone sustained hot streak the Cubs have
had in the past several years was from late July on in 2003 when they
had Lofton leading off. They played about .650 ball over an extended
time...and that's no coincidence.

>Pierre is going to be very very expensive, and his value is going to
>drop significantly over the next few years.

Pierre's salary of $3.7 Million in 2005 is not unreasonable. Beyond
that, everything else you say is still just speculation.

--John A,

David the Nationals Fan

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 6:22:11 PM11/14/05
to

John A. wrote:

> Pierre has always been a slash and dash hitter and he wore out teams
> by serving pitches to left field. Last year, teams adjusted by
> busting him inside with hard stuff. He struggled for awhile and then
> started turning on that pitch and pulling it in the hole between first
> and second. From that point on, he was pretty much the same player he
> was in 2004.

Except that, again, the facts don't really agree with your
observations.

Month/Avg/OBP/SLG
April .297/.343/.407
May .226/.287/.264
June .262/.292/,355
July .306/.369/.378
Aug .248/.319/.328
Sept .292/.324/.368


In August he posted his second worst month of the year and April was
the second best month of the year. He started out "okay" in April,
struggled in May, got better in June, even better in July, struggled
again in August and recovered in September.

> Since neither you nor I know what it would take to get Pierre, this is
> all meaningless speculation on your part. Pierre or a player like him
> is an extremely important piece of the puzzle. All 8 playoff teams
> last year had solid leadoff hitters,


Yes. And Pierre was not as "solid" as most of them.

> To put it another way, the one lone sustained hot streak the Cubs have
> had in the past several years was from late July on in 2003 when they
> had Lofton leading off. They played about .650 ball over an extended
> time...and that's no coincidence.

I don't think that we disagree about the idea that the Cubs need
someone who can get on base to be at the top of the line-up. I just
don't think its Pierre.


> >Pierre is going to be very very expensive, and his value is going to
> >drop significantly over the next few years.
>
> Pierre's salary of $3.7 Million in 2005 is not unreasonable. Beyond
> that, everything else you say is still just speculation.

If his salary was going to be "reasonable" you would think that the
Marlins, who expect to contend, would keep him. They are getting rid
of him because he is arbitration eligible and that salary is going to
shoot way up. (yes, its speculation.... but it is also speculation to
say that if you drink poison you will die.... you might be immune to
the poison, but that is not likely..)

Unknown

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 7:32:29 PM11/14/05
to
On 14 Nov 2005 15:22:11 -0800, "David the Nationals Fan"
<davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>John A. wrote:
>
>> Pierre has always been a slash and dash hitter and he wore out teams
>> by serving pitches to left field. Last year, teams adjusted by
>> busting him inside with hard stuff. He struggled for awhile and then
>> started turning on that pitch and pulling it in the hole between first
>> and second. From that point on, he was pretty much the same player he
>> was in 2004.
>
>Except that, again, the facts don't really agree with your
>observations.
>
>Month/Avg/OBP/SLG
>April .297/.343/.407
>May .226/.287/.264
>June .262/.292/,355
>July .306/.369/.378
>Aug .248/.319/.328
>Sept .292/.324/.368
>
>
>In August he posted his second worst month of the year and April was
>the second best month of the year. He started out "okay" in April,
>struggled in May, got better in June, even better in July, struggled
>again in August and recovered in September.

All this proves is the arbitrary nature of looking at stats by month.
You failed to note that almost 25% of his strikeouts occurred in the
month of May.

If you factor out a tough August ...you find that Pierre hit right
around his usual .300 from May on. That's 3 1/2 months worth/

In some ways he is similar to Lee, who learned to hit the inside pitch
into the left field seats and at age 30 had a career year.

In any event, anytime you can plug a guy into the leadoff spot and
pencil him in for 200 hits, 50 SKy and less than 50Ks, you've got a
keeper.


>> Since neither you nor I know what it would take to get Pierre, this is
>> all meaningless speculation on your part. Pierre or a player like him
>> is an extremely important piece of the puzzle. All 8 playoff teams
>> last year had solid leadoff hitters,
>
>
>Yes. And Pierre was not as "solid" as most of them.

Interesting you should say that, considering Pierre was the lea doff
hitter for the World Champion Marlins team in 2003, and his offensive
stats were better in 2004 than they were in 2003.


>> To put it another way, the one lone sustained hot streak the Cubs have
>> had in the past several years was from late July on in 2003 when they
>> had Lofton leading off. They played about .650 ball over an extended
>> time...and that's no coincidence.
>
>I don't think that we disagree about the idea that the Cubs need
>someone who can get on base to be at the top of the line-up. I just
>don't think its Pierre.

Then, who do you think it is? Don't tell me Loft on, because he is a
lot older than Pierre and is injury prone at this stage in his career.
So, there is no way you can make the argument that he is a better
choice than Pierre. Then, who?

>> >Pierre is going to be very very expensive, and his value is going to
>> >drop significantly over the next few years.
>>
>> Pierre's salary of $3.7 Million in 2005 is not unreasonable. Beyond
>> that, everything else you say is still just speculation.
>
>If his salary was going to be "reasonable" you would think that the
>Marlins, who expect to contend, would keep him. They are getting rid
>of him because he is arbitration eligible and that salary is going to
>shoot way up. (yes, its speculation.... but it is also speculation to
>say that if you drink poison you will die.... you might be immune to
>the poison, but that is not likely..)

Hammy. Arguing out of both sides of your mouth? If he is in decline,
why would arbitration bring him a huge increase?

Here is the real situation: Pierre is in the prime of his career and
he is one of the premier lea doff hitters in baseball, Of this, there
is no dispute,

Will he get an increase ins salary? He will, but it is not likely to
be as astronomical as you seem to think.

The Marlins have much bigger problems than Pierre's salary...the $48M
left on Carlos Delegator's contract or the $18M they still owe Mike Lo
well, whose production fell off a cliff in 2005.

The Marlins are looking at a major revamping no matter what and that
is why they are entertaining offers for Pierre, not because they are
disenchanted with him.

--John A.

Roto Daddy

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 10:26:40 PM11/14/05
to

"David the Nationals Fan" <davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132005803.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Last year Pierre had a sub-par year. He has had very recent seasons with OBP
%'s above .370. He is well worth the 3+ mil he will earn for one year. As
long as Pie is not involved in the deal, I say a trade for Pierre really has
no downside. He doesn't block Pie long term, and can only be an upgrade over
what we have. If he performs like last year, we're okay. If he returns to
form, we are in great shape.


Johnson

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 10:40:26 AM11/15/05
to
"Career season averages: .305 AVG, .355 OBP, 100 R, 51 SB, 199 H. He
played on a dysfunctional Marlins team last year who had several key
players who tanked big time. Now, tell me again what there is not to
like about this guy? "

Those are some amazing numbers.

Johnson

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 10:41:11 AM11/15/05
to
"But I would like you to try to tell me, in the context of
the numbers, why Pierre should suddenly be the second or third highest
paid Postion Player on the team. He's not nearly that valuable. "


He *is* that valuable to the Cubs.

Evan Thomas

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 1:49:30 PM11/15/05
to
John A. <> wrote in news:lhuhn11bbkr08nrks...@4ax.com:

First off, I'd like to say that I think Pierre would be a pretty good
acquisition for the Cubs, if he wouldn't cost a too-valuable prospect.
As most of us not-insane people know, there are better options out
there, but Pierre would be a good fit for the current management.
Considering that a large part of Pierre's OBP is tied up in his BA
(which is known for large fluctuations in players of his type), there is
decent reason to believe he'll have an average .300/.350/.385 year next
year, assuming that he's able to adapt to Wrigley and squeeze out all
those singles. Unspectacular, but useful in this case. (You see, we need
a guy who "feels" like a leadoff hitter--you know, for Dusty--but who
also has metrics representative of a good #1.)

But what I really wanted to say in this post is that NOT STRIKING OUT is
ABSOLUTELY NOT a valuable skill. There is no correlation between a
player's value and his ability to avoid strikeouts. There is no
correlation between not striking out and getting on base. There is no
correlation between avoiding strikeouts and anything meaningful.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages