Tomorrow is the official day when Cubs pitchers and catchers are supposed to report to the Spring Training facility in Mesa. It is the official start of the Spring Training season (games begin in March) and most Cubs pitchers and catchers are already in camp.
According to Carrie Muskat of MLB.com, Carlos Zambrano, Randy Wells, Jeff Samardjzia, Sean Marshall, Jeff Stevens, Tom Gorzelanny, Mike Parisi, David Patton, Jeff Gray, John Gaub, Vince Perkins, and Koyie Hill showed up at least two days early. Most are there to get a jump on Spring Training, but at least one, Tom Gorzelanny, said he simply wanted to escape Chicago’s frigid winter.
**********
The Cubs are expected to go to an arbitration hearing later this week with Ryan Theriot. Maury Brown from The Biz of Baseball put together some thoughts on Theriot and his closest comparable shortstop, Stephen Drew.
This same discussion took place last week on The Cubs Reporter. I agree with those who feel Stephen Drew is the superior shortstop. The problem with this opinion is that the stats don’t really support it. With the except of having greater power, Drew pales in comparison to Theriot in most other stat categories.
My prediction is that Theriot will win the arbitration hearing (he’s asking for $3.4 million, the Cubs are offering $2.6 million). Since Drew signed for $3.4 million, I guess that figure is fair. Even so, I have a hard time agreeing with it.
**********
Does your head ever hurt when you read baseball statistics. Mine sometimes does. I’m trying to become more stat literate, but sometimes, understanding the stat requires more math ability than I possess. Plus, it sometimes seems like a stat is slicing and dicing other stats to come up with the same information.
Stats guru John Sikels of MinorLeagueBall.com feels the same way:
The newest stuff is becoming so granular that I’m having problems making sense of it. I’m a humanities guy, and the most advanced math is beyond my ability to completely comprehend. My personal opinion is that the many of the newest metrics (at least in regards to hitting and pitching) are just more complicated ways to say the same basic truths.
I wrote previously about my desire for one offensive stat that could tell you everything you’d ever want to know about a hitter. Sure, it’s pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but the wish was borne of my desire to condense all of the mathemastically complicated stats into one stat that even I can understand. Unfortunately, baseball stats are probably too complicated for that.
I’m not sure that many of the new stats are really helping us understand baseball any better. If you first have to understand arcane mathematical formulas before you can understand the stat, then most of the population will never understand most stats. Plus, are these new stats really telling us anything new or are statisticians and math majors simply showing off because they can? I could probably figure out 15 different ways to tell you that the grass needs to be cut, but do you really need more than just one easily understood way?
Whenever anyone starts to question the value of baseball statistics, they run the risk of being labeled a heretic. I don’t mean to criticize stats per se. My concern is with the stats that convey the same information as another stat, but in a more convoluted way. If you’re not going to provide any new information, why create a new statistic?
**********
Scout.com listed the 25 best prospects in baseball this past week. Two Cubs graced the top 25. Josh Vitters came in at number 11, while Starlin Castro showed up at number 22.
I don’t necessarily agree with the placement of the two Cubs prospects, but I have to admit that it is somewhat impressive that the Cubs have two prospects on the list. The A’s, Marlins and Twins were the only other clubs to have two prospects on the top 25 list.
**********
David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune comes to the defense of Jerry Reinsdorf and his opposition to what is being referred to as the Cubs tax. If you already know my opinion on Reinsdorf and the other hypocrite MLB owners who have Spring Training facilities in Arizona, then you probably won’t be surprised about how I feel about Haugh’s article.
Haugh writes:
From here, Reinsdorf’s refusal to play ball looks more like a matter of principle than anything personal and a smart move well within his rights as a shrewd businessman.
The words “Reinsdorf” and “principle” should not be used in the same sentence. Reinsdorf’s opposition to the Cubs tax has nothing to do with principle. It has everything to do with money, or more accurately, Jerry Reinsdorf’s money.
Was Reinsdorf being “principled” when his White Sox abandoned Tuscon in favor of Glendale and the $184 million taxpayer-funded Spring Training facility there? Was he being principled when he left the taxpayers holding the bag for more than $30 million in unpaid bonds when he decided to vacate the White Sox Spring Training home in Tuscon for greener (pun intended) pastures? Was he being principled when he put his hand out for taxpayer funding that helped him build U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago? Jerry Reinsdorf doesn’t know the meaning of the word “principle.”
I also have to take exception to Haugh’s contention that Reinsdorf is being a “shrewd businessman” by opposing the Cubs tax. If the funding scheme the Arizona legislature has devised falls flat on it’s face and the Cubs leave Arizona, Reinsdorf’s White Sox will be among the biggest losers. Many fans attending White Sox Spring Training games are in Arizona primarily because of the Cubs, or at least in part because of the Cubs. If the Cubs leave, so will many of the fans. And no one will be hurt more by this exodus than the White Sox.
Adding a dollar surcharge to all Spring Training tickets is a small price to pay to keep the Cubs in Arizona. The surcharge will likely have a negligible impact on overall ticket sales, but if the Cubs leave Arizona, the other MLB teans will see significant decreases in Spring Training attendance. If Jerry Reinsdorf was really a “shrewd businessman,” he would be in favor of the Cubs tax, not fighting it tooth and nail.
