October 5, 2008
In Defense Of Alfonso Soriano
It doesn't take much for many Cubs fans to turn on Alfonso Soriano. Hell, some were never on board in the first place.
So, when he started slowly, some questioned whether he should be batting leadoff. Some questioned whether he did the little, unselfish things necessary to win baseball games. Others still pondered whether he was good enough to play major league baseball at all.
A hot streak quieted all that - even through his six-week DL stay with a broken hand - and it stayed quiet until this week. Failure demands a scapegoat. And that scapegoat is the $136 million man.
Fine, though we would argue that short of Carlos Zambrano, Mark DeRosa in Game 1 and Derrek Lee in Game 3, the failure of the 2008 Cubs in the playoffs was a total team failure. Soriano, however, is getting more than his fair share of the blame - including a few posts down on this blog.
Which means it is a useful time to remember that there is a very good chance the Cubs would not have been playing in October 2008 without Alfonso Soriano.* They certainly would not have played in October 2007 without him.*
The Cubs were 69-38 with Soriano in the starting lineup this year. They were 28-26 without him in the starting lineup.
Not only that, the leadoff spot was adrift this year when Soriano was out of the lineup. How much so? Glad you asked:
The final column is the percentage of production from Soriano in the leadoff position over the full year.
Therefore, Soriano had 62 percent of the at-bats in the leadoff spot but 65 percent of the runs and hits, 71 percent of the doubles, 88 percent of the home runs, 75 percent of the RBIs, 68 percent of the walks (!), 100 percent of the intentional walks, 67 percent of the strikeouts (bet you thought it would be more), 60 percent of the GDPs, 76 percent of the steals and 43 percent of the caught stealings.
*And, yes, we fully concede he was abysmal at the plate in the 2007 and 2008 playoffs. It is disappointing. But the Cubs were in the playoffs each of those two years largely because of Alfonso Guilleard Soriano. As always, we firmly believe that if the Cubs get to the playoffs with regularity, something good is bound to happen. Some day.
Labels: Alfonso Soriano, Chicago Cubs, In Defense Of
Discussion
16 Comments on "In Defense Of Alfonso Soriano"
#2
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 5, 2008 10:30 PM
Good lord! I didn't even realize Soriano was THAT much better than the other leadoff hitters. I hope that quiets the critics, but we know it won't.
#3
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 5, 2008 11:58 PM
I forgot how nuts Chuck is. The one person with less going on than Al? Maybe?
#4
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 12:24 AM
In 2007, the Cubs offense scored more runs per game when Theriot led off. Also, this spring, when Soriano wasn't in the lineup at all for 14 games, the offense positively erupted for over 7 runs per game.So, while you make good points in this post, this is a matter of 'choose your stats'. In the playoffs, pitchers are far more focused. Opposing managers are going to drill it into them to keep feeding Soriano sliders away and off the plate. They do and it works. Interestingly enough, one thing Maddog and I agree upon is that if we were pitchers, Soriano would never see a fastball... and would only see sliders and curves away. Well, that actually happens in the playoffs! There's more focus.Much of what you're saying about Soriano in the regular season is true. However, the guy now has 174 postseason AB's. That's A LOT. He has a .263 obp and a .562 OPS. WV, that's ridiculous. If you want to waltz into another playoff series expecting different results at leadoff, you can also believe that any relief pitcher can also close.The goal isn't making the playoffs. The goal is a world series championship.And besides, one thing that's been lost in all this is that Soriano's numbers in the 5 spot haven't been that bad. He's actually produced more runs and rbi's per plate appearance from that spot than batting leadoff.
#5
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 12:47 AM
One other important note. If you're going to get into wins and losses, (something I've been crucified for), you should account for the fact that for most of Soriano's tenure with the Cubs, when he hasn't led off, he hasn't been in the lineup.So, you're presenting contrasting numbers with a team that not only doesn't have Soriano leading off, but doesn't have his bat at all. That's not a solid argument against team performance with his hitting lower in the order. Once again, I'm a proponent of his batting fifth. He did well for Texas in that role.
#6
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 3:00 AM
Hawk, for the love of god and sonny jesus will you please verse yourself even somewhat in the concept of small sample size?
#7
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, October 6, 2008 8:41 AM
Chuck's good people. A bit nuts, but good people.
#8
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 9:23 AM
Anonymous,What the statheads can't understand is... in terms of playoff baseball, 174 AB's is actually a substantial and large sample size. Try and find a non-Yankee/Red Sock with more. Actually, to give you some perspective on it, A-Rod has 147. Barry Bonds HAD 151.And a .562 OPS from a guy making $17 million per year is significantly bad. This is not a small sample size. Plus, I no longer acknowledge the 'small sample size' argument from statheads because you guys go through emotional roller coasters according to three game win or lose streaks.
#9
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, October 6, 2008 9:43 AM
i like chuck and his blog. he just has one paralyzing blind spot that is rather amusing.like me and cauliflower.
#10
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 10:35 AM
Statheads don't understand stats? I've never seen a stathead cherry pick 3 or 30 or 50 games and also ignore hundreds, if not thousands of others. That would be like saying that on Tuesday between 9:30 and 10:15 AM, John McCain had a 7 point advantage over Obama and therefore is going to win the election. Should we go with those 45 minutes of calls or the hundreds of hours of other calls? Pitchers focus more? Hitters don't? Do right handed pitchers 6'3" or taller focus as much as left handed pitchers 6'0" and smaller? Does a pinch hitter focus as much as the 7th inning reliever? What about weight? A pitcher 250 lbs or more doesn't focus as much as one one under 250 lbs? I'll bet I could find a correlation between weight and success in the Dodgers/Cubs series. Does that mean it's true no matter what common sense you apply? What about left handed pitchers that wear contacts and have the hiccups? What about right handed pitchers whose family has a history of acne? Can they focus as much as the left handed hitting (right handed throwing) outfielder who can play all 3 outfield spots? These are important questions that I'm sure are every bit as valuable as ignoring the bulk of the data as thehawk has. What we really need to know is if switch hitting left handed middle relievers are better at games that start at 3:15 pm on the west coast than a right handed hitting and throwing pitcher who starts a game at 6:08 pm east coast time. The question myself and many others have been pondering for decades is why are pitchers with 3 fingers better than the average pitcher with 5 fingers? And why are the 3-fingered players worse hitters than the average 5-fingered hitter? I'll bet they focus more than the ones with 5 fingers when they're pitching, but the pitchers are focusing more when they face hitters with 3 fingers. Must be.
#11
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 1:56 PM
First, I love Soriano -- so let's just get that off the table. I sat through endless painful games at RFK watching Nats lose but saying, "Hey wouldn't Soriano be unreal at Wrigley." The debate, at least in terms of how I view it, isn't whether Soriano is good, great or the greatest....it's whether he better serves the Cubs hitting leadoff or in the meat of the order. This isn't a criticism of him; it's just a question of what best serves the team.For the statheads, "the book"heads, meatheads, whatever....some food for thought.Soriano's numbers don't seem to add up to those of a leadoff hitterHis 29 HR, 75 RBI, 127 hits (56 of which were HRs or 2Bs ... zero triples by the way which adds to this argument) and 100 strikeouts -- all of which are impressive (except the Ks) given he missed many games -- are not the numbers of a leadoff hitter.You look at those numbers with no name next to them, any baseball person says that's a 5 or 6 hitter. Maybe even a 4 -- given he'd have been a high 30s/100 RBI man in a full season w/o injuries.And think of how much higher those RBIs would have been if he hit in middle of order, or how many more runs the Cubs may have scored if it's leadoff hitter didn't K 100 times.Some have argued that the Cubs go get Furcal. Agreed. A true leadoff hitter who frees up Soriano to hit 5th and drive him and others home more.When Soriano talks about the Cubs not being built for short series but marathon, it's an interesting and perceptive comment. Lot of profound truth to it when you take the time to think about it.But to follow his thought process, it means he needs to move down to his more natural spot in the order...and Cubs need to get a sparkplug at top of order. Like Furcal provided for Dodgers. Maybe Alfonso will get it now that he's being introspective about how the team is built.Now if you want to be untraditional and keep peace in clubhouse, then keep the status quo. The one, and perhaps only, true upside is the fifth at-bat Soriano gets most games. When you're down 1-2 runs...not a bad guy to have coming up with 2 outs in the ninth. I just don't think it's enough to outweigh Alfonso hitting where he belongs in the middle.Personally, I like a lineup that's Furcal, DeRosa or whoever our CF is next year if he's a good contact hitter, DLee, Aramis, Soriano, Dunn, Soto, Fukudome or Pie, Carlos Zambrano (who I believe led the team in batting average???)Only two pieces to pick up for next year: Furcal and Dunn. Cuban can afford it. Then hope Fukdudome gets hot early so you can unload him to Seattle or something. Or he's an expensive defensive replacement for Dunn in 9th.Just saying...
#12
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, October 6, 2008 2:02 PM
but the fact remains: the cubs did not have another viable leadoff hitter on the roster in 2008. lots of people kept insisting he be moved down. why? so the cubs could have a leadoff hitter with a .306 OBP? using my math, i see that is much worse than .350.soriano was and is the best option, until some roster move is made (which you rightfully advocate). by far.
#13
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 5:36 PM
Why do we always hear about this "true leadoff man" stuff? Tom Tango showed that moving Soriano down would add all of 2 runs to the Cubs offense this year. 2 runs is significant in terms of other lineup optimization techniques, but 2 runs isn't a significant number of runs in general. A leadoff man, whether he's at true one or a false one, produces runs. That's his job. Come to think of it, that's the job of every single hitter. There are better lineup configurations than others and you have a strong argument though I think you are attacking it wrong and not using the evidence necessary to sway others. But there is no such thing as a true leadoff man. Yes, obviously you want a leadoff man who gets on base, but you also want your other hitters to get on base so there's nothing special here. Ideally you'd like a player in the leadoff spot that hits lots of singles, takes lots of walks, but doesn't steal many bases. Why? Because the 2-3-4 hitters are capable of driving the run in from 1st base. Especially the middle of the order. For these guys, a runner on 1st is already in scoring position so risking the out attempting to steal a base is silly. That doesn't sound like the mythical true leadoff hitter, does it? We were taught to think that guys with speed belong at the top. But why? Unless you can steal bases at a rate like Tim Raines, you'd be better served with speed down in the 6th spot in the lineup in front of some singles hitters so he can steal some bases and get into scoring position. Ultimately you want all your batters to get on base, take walks, hit for power, and so on. That's not possible meaning there are better lineup configurations as you know, but what you want out of your leadoff hitter you want out of every hitter that follows too. I don't understand the lure of this true leadoff man stuff. You want guys who produce runs to hit in every spot in your lineup. How those runs are produced just doesn't matter. A run produced by Soriano is the same as a run produced by Lou Brock.
#14
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 7:17 PM
Maddog, while one might infer the "leadoff man" angle to my argument...that's not even really the main aspect of my argument.It's not so much that he's not a competent leadoff hitter. It's that he's a better middle-of-the-order hitter. Look, you like to look at things through the numbers lense. Billy Beane per se. I'm a progressive traditionalist. I start with "The Book" and get funky in places from there...and go by feel as much as raw numbers (which is why I most feared the Dodgers because of certain intangibles they brought to the table.) Neither is wrong, just different.So I just think Alfonso adds more value in the middle of the order, which is better suited for his style of hitting and his skills, than at leadoff. I think he adds more value to the Cubs there. WV makes good point -- we need to get a legit leadoff guy. Furcal. Still not sure how Lofton got blackballed so badly.I think for the Cubs to get over the top and have a more balanced team, I think we need to get our leadoff guy (Furcal or someone else) and a left-handed power bat. I think Dunn would be great at Wrigley. We can tolerate his Ks and lower average (which I think would rise with some real hitters finally around him), and he did lead the league in walks. Texiera would be great, too, but I'm not willing to give up on DLee yet. I think he just had a bad year...was hurting a bit...and perhaps his daughter still on his mind a bit. The Abreu trade...maybe -- he won't strike out as much as Dunn, but his numbers/hitting style are too similar Aramis and DLee (lots of gappers/doubles/good avg). I think we need a legit 40-45 homer, 125 RBI guy which Dunn would bring to Wrigley. Plus, I think the RF gang would love him and we could use that kind of energy out there again since Fukudome frittered away his RF fan love.We make those two changes, and keep the core of our pitching -- knowing that we may be able to lose a guy and have a Samardjiza there to step in -- and .... well, I don't want to jinx us.I'm just happy that I seem to be coming out of my funk and am actually seeing the sunshine for next year.
#15
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 6, 2008 7:45 PM
It's not so much that he's not a competent leadoff hitter. It's that he's a better middle-of-the-order hitter. I'm not going to argue that and I think both of us are all for the Cubs going after Furcal and moving Soriano down (to the 3-spot!). The reason I like statistical arguments is that they're verifiable. What you're saying may be more right than what I am, but we have no way of knowing. I'm not saying you have to like stats. You're respectable of my opinions even when you disagree and I try to be of yours as well, but surely fail from time to time. All arguments begin with a premise. These premises should be backed up with evidence and facts. You've actually done that even though I disagree with your methodology. Arguments then become stronger as we work through differences in evidence. Rarely will I get involved in any argument regarding baseball, or anything else for that matter, without evidence and the best evidence for the average fan is stats. The reason is that my opinions are flawed. I'm not paid to be a scout and therefore my biases and opinions in other areas of the game affect all my opinions. All of my observations are flawed. So it's not often that I value my own opinion over what I can probably find by looking at some stats. That's rare actually. All human beings have flawed opinions. There are obviously other parts of the game, but let's be honest here. Neither you nor I are capable of providing a scouting report or gleaning information from this game that can't be better found out by looking at stats. We simply don't see the entire game and are therefore incapable of accurate claims without all the information. If I told you could buy a red car or a blue car, that's not enough information for you to make a decision. The same thing is true here. I respect your opinions. I truly do. I just think we can reach the same conclusion faster and more accurately if we use stats. That is all.
#16
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, October 7, 2008 12:02 AM
Tom Tango saying the Cubs would have scored only 2 more runs with Soriano lower in the order isn't 'verifiable'. It's conjecture and fiction. If it was verifiable, the statheads could predict everything from the start of spring training every year. WV, as far as other options, you are aware of course that we had a guy on the roster with a .387 obp, right? I guess not. They may have given him the green light on steals too many times, but it doesn't make him less of a leadoff man. Plus, you can continue to ignore the fact that the 2007 team scored more runs per game with Theriot leading off.Also, no response to how logically I dismissed your win/loss argument? I guess you have no counter argument. Well, there really isn't one. You can't compare Soriano at leadoff / team performance with Soriano completely out of the lineup / team performance. That doesn't really allow for an analysis of his moving down the order.Then, since Maddog says the goal of every hitter is to produce runs... yet make fun of me for promoting runs + rbi's... there's the simple fact that Soriano's produced more runs + rbi's from the 5 spot than he has from leadoff.But, you guys can play choose your stats... and then pretend all I do is play choose your stats.
Recent Posts
WV23 Chat
cubs Community
- Get your chance to see Bobby Scales!
- Will Rice Voters Shift To Dawson?
- Cubs Rumor Mill: Rich Aurilia, Cubs Minor Leaguer (S)Crap Heap Edition
- Ronnie Woo Woo: The Documentary
-
Community home
Community home
-
Publish a post
Publish a post
-
Recommended
Recommended
-
Audio
Audio
-
Video
Video
Division Rivals
Regional Teams
Leave a comment