The Other Fifteen

Eighty-five percent of the f---in' world is working. The other fifteen come out here.

Cubs sign Alex Cintron

Harry Pavlidis over at Cubs f/x has a good overview of how capable Cintron is(n't).

Let's take a look at this based on our Cubs WAR chart:

Ryan Theriot542.312-.10.69
Ronny Cedeno275.331-.10.79
Alex Cintron275.234-.19-1.30

What does this mean?

  1. Hendry somehow managed to find a way to sign a shortstop worse than what we have already.
  2. Interestingly enough, Theriot is somehow less valuable than Ronny Cedeno despite getting almost twice as many PAs on my depth chart.
  3. Wow, Alex Cintron is bad.
  4. Wow.

So... suffice it to say that Alex Cintron is not an infield predator. This is just a minor league, though, and Hendry says the right things:

"Obviously he had a few snags last year coming off (elbow) surgery," general manager Jim Hendry said. "But our people have been watching him in Puerto Rico. I think he'd done some working out with Carmelo Martinez earlier in the year, so we’ve had our eye on him. We felt like it made sense, especially with (Ronny) Cedeno getting some outfield time in the spring. So we felt like we needed someone else in camp that could play shortstop other than (Ryan) Theriot and Ronny."

It's okay to sign a replacement player at replacement salary if that's all you use him as. If Cintron ends up in AAA Iowa I'm perfectly happy with this. If not... well, kiss two wins goodbye.

Oh, and for those curious:

Mark DeRosa556.342-.571.32
Brian Roberts630.349.192.55

Replacing Cedeno with Cintron already pretty much eats away the benefits of a Roberts trade. (I don't know that taking a few hundred at-bats away from Mike Fontenot justifies the deal either, but I still have a little more work to do with the chaining here.)

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

17 Responses to “Cubs sign Alex Cintron”

  1. # Anonymous DeRoMyHero

    There is a lot of chaining going on here...

    1. Assume no Roberts trade, and assume that Lou keeps 2 backup MIers. Which 2 of (Cedeno, Cintron, Fontenot, EPat) would make the Cubs better? We have to take into account that Fontenot can only play one position.

    2. Assume the Roberts trade is made (for Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, Veal) and that DeRo plays SS. Which 2 of (Theriot, Cintron, EPat, Fontenot) make the Cubs better?

    3. Assume the Roberts trade is made (same as #2), but that Riot plays SS. If DeRo is "the bench", does it matter who else Lou keeps?

    My guess is #1, and I don't believe Fontenot will make the team. Even though DeRo can move to accomodate him, Lou may want the MI more settled (at least until he has to bench Riot). Needing versatility from the bench, I think that Cedeno makes the team, and that EPat has the edge over Cintron since he's already on the 40. EPat does have to show some OF skills, though.  

  2. # Anonymous The Hawk

    Dying Laughing

    Not a single taker on the RBI challenge.

    Why do players collect about the same amount of RBI's on bad teams as on good teams? Where's the team dependency?

    I'm still waiting for a stathead to name a single player whose RBI numbers have shifted along with the quality of talent around him.

    The closest one I can think of is David Ortiz whose career took off upon getting to Boston. But, we're talking about a guy whose OPS shot up too. Not to mention, when he got to Boston, he was 27 and entering his prime.

    The OPS part is significant because I'd want proof in the form of a guy whose OPS numbers have remained relatively consistent while the RBI numbers shifted. It's only there that you could utimately prove your team-dependency BS.

    Outside of possibly the one exception, name any other guys whose RBI numbers have shifted based on the quality of talent, the offense around him.

    Bobby Abreu's sure a good example. His RBI numbers have shown remarkable consistency despite moving from much weaker offenses in Philly to the high powered New York Yankees.


    2001 110
    2002 85
    2003 101
    2004 105
    2005 102
    2006 107
    2007 101

    Boy, it's sure team dependent, isn't it?

    Prove to me, using players, that the ZORP bullshit is any better a barometer for a players' production than obp, slugging, and run production.

    I have never seen the statheads as silent on a subject as this one. Neither yourself, 'Anonymous', nor Maddog have the fortitude to tackle this issue. You simply maintain a borderline 'creationist' faith that Baseball Prospectus knew what the hell it was talking about when it created this 'team dependent' dogma with RBI's.

    On this issue, the geeks would write: 'crickets'

    I can tell you this... the closest thing you're going to find to evidence will be a ballpark factor, NOT a team factor. Rockies players have racked up a ton of RBI's... while since 2002, good luck finding many Padres who reached 100 RBI's. Or, Gary Sheffield getting out of Dodgers stadium was significant. You're only going to find exceptions, not the norm.

    You won't find any relationship between the quality of a guy's team and his RBI totals. Especially not one that would suffice Anonymous' correlation factors. What you will find is a relationship between how well a guy hit and his RBI totals, regardless of whom he played for.  

  3. # Anonymous Maddog

    I think this acquisition just assures the team they will give 200 or so plate appearances to below replacement level players. As you know, I've figured that all along so I'm not sure this makes the Cubs worse.

    It's also just a minor league deal so unless Hendry does trade Cedeno, it's a signing that will only add a little shortstop depth and while Cintron isn't any good, he's better than Carlos Rojas who would be next in line to play shortstop since the Cubs don't see DeRosa as an alternative. Cintron is now 3rd on the depth chart at shortstop.

    That could change if Hendry trades Cedeno, but I don't think that will happen unless he gets a 4th outfielder who can play CF. The Cubs seem to like Cedeno's ability in CF based on how he played there the few times he did in the VWL. My guess is that as of right now, he gets the start in CF against tougher lefties giving Pie the day off even though Cedeno is actually worse against lefties than he is righties.  

  4. # Anonymous Anonymous

    i think the reason we ignored your RBI challenge is nobody knew it existed lol.

    when your site is known as "comments be the first to comment" you cant really expect people to follow every assnine thing you come up with  

  5. # Blogger Harry Pavlidis

    Hendry talks like Cedeno is an outfielder, Lou talks like he's an infielder.

    Adds up to Hendry trying to trade the guy. He's out of options, so he's gotta play or go (doubtful he'd pass waivers.

    Cintron is just an older version of Cedeno. He's fine as a back-up, that's it. And that's all he's intended to be. You don't want Fontenot or DeRosa playing there.  

  6. # Blogger Official Ted Lilly Fan Club

    Why is it that the Cub's love signing weak hitting IF's who are coming off scary arm surgery's?

    Exhibit 1: Caesar "Salad" Izturis -'07
    Exhibit 2: Alex "Absolute" Cintron -'08

    Maybe we can convert Chad Fox to an SS?

    BTW pre TLFC was at Fox's last Wrigley game... scary how his arm just hung. Why Dusty let that guy throw 35+ pitches that night is just baffling.  

  7. # Anonymous Maddog

    Harry, I tend to agree. As a back-up, it's not a big deal at all and not going to cost this team much, if anything at all. I do disagree about him being more capable of playing SS than DeRosa. The Cubs (Lou) may believe that to be true, but prior to 2007, DeRosa had played more shorstop than 2nd base. He was just blocked by Furcal for years in Atlanta and then Michael Young in Texas. I don't think he'd be a good defensive shorstop, though I doubt he'd be the worst in the league either, but his offense is more than good enough to make up for any defensive shortcomings in my opinion.  

  8. # Anonymous The Hawk


    It was in the last thread where you demonstrated the reading comprehension skills of a first grader.

    It's here again now... and it will remain...

    None of you statheads can provide sufficient evidence that rbi's are team dependent. It you could, you would.

    I've presented it about four times now and it just about kills me how the subject frightens you guys. I can hear you thinking this in a British female voice, "Oh dear! ... How embarrassing it would be if RBI's really weren't so team based!"

    Guys on lousy teams don't have that many fewer rbi opportunities. It's not nearly what you guys think.

    RBI's correlate really well with OPS, depending on the ballpark. It doesn't depend on the team's record. Sorry. When you find variance, it's a matter of clutch hitting or lack thereof... and once again, not the team.  

  9. # Anonymous Anonymous

    actually i still havent read anything you post so its not a matter of comprehension, its the fact that your a tool and i dont care what you have to say about anything.

    this is one of those arguments where i dont need stats we can use common sense. David Ortiz will have more chances to drive in runs with Ellsbury or Youk in front of him than he would if he played for the 05 cubs and had Patterson and Neifi to table set. This is simple, the better teams have better guys = getting on base = more RBI chances for everyone

    have you got tired of writing posts for yourself hawk? or are you trying to expand your "audience" by coming here?

    go back to your own blog vi, maybe someone will be the first to comment on whatever shite you're writing at the moment  

  10. # Anonymous The Hawk

    Ah, well if it isn't my dear nemisis Gaius Maximus after all... lead imbecile of Cubs statland. The single dumbest motherfucker on earth, incognito.

    He of the declaration that the Cubs were positively finished at 6-9 last year. The genius who names 'payroll' as the number one obstacle in the Cubs' not having won the World Series the last 7 years... when it clearly isn't. The babip wunderschlub who waited on that mean reversion all year and it never happened.

    You never answer for those matters... just as you won't answer with evidence on this subject.

    The Neifi/Corey thing sure sounds great in theory, right? And yet, it simply isn't the case when it comes to RBI's. The numbers bare that out... guys like Vladimir Guerrero, A-Rod, Carlos Lee, Bobby Abreu, Alfonso Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, etc. These guys have all had the same or often more RBI's on the worse teams they've played for.

    It's so funny. You guys can't come up with any concrete evidence that RBI's are team dependent. You resort to talking shit and personal attacks... just as you always have.

    That I was right about Koyie Hill and the disaster of the Kendall acquisition just kills you, doesn't it? The fact that you forecast absolutely nothing correctly is pretty frustrating, huh?

    And sorry, the fact is... you and your like read everything I write... especially you. You guys are obsessed. You read my current article and can't handle the truth about RBI's.

    Aw, poor little queen Gaius... no longer has CCD around to give him a platform. So, you seek me out to start trouble, hoping for any sort of relevance.

    You do realize of course... that CCD's favorite moment in the history of his blog was when I shot you down with every exchange in early July. I was like Neo to your C3P0.

    It's so funny... you guys can't even mind your own business. You and Maddog honestly can't live without me. Some new guy Colin comments at my blog and invites me to his... and you guys come to me to start up? Why not fess up to your reality and start up at my blog? Why bring to others? It's quite rude I must say.

    Get a fucking life, Gaius. Is yours so incomplete without me?  

  11. # Anonymous The Hawk

    Kinda funny about that Korey Patterson thing that's come up twice now. Why look at David Ortiz when we can look at our own Aramis, Mo, and DLee in the real world?

    The 2003 Cubs, which acquired Kenny about half way through:

    724 runs
    Aramis 39 RBI's in 63 games - 62%
    Moises 91 RBI's in 151 games - 60%
    w/ Marlins & excellent table setters Pierre & Castillo:
    DLee 92 RBI's in 155 games - 59%

    2004 Cubs with the awful Korey leading off:
    789 runs
    Aramis 103 RBI's in 145 Games - 71%
    Moises 106 RBI's in 155 Games - 68%
    DLee 98 RBI's in 161 Games - 61%

    2005 Cubs w/ Korey and Neifi playing ball:
    705 Runs
    Aramis 92 RBI's in 123 Games - 75%
    DLee 107 RBI's in 158 Games - 68%

    RBI's are a funny thing, aren't they?

    Now, nobody values a great leadoff man more than I do... as I believe an offense goes as its leadoff man goes. But the thing is... I look at the win loss column and WHEN the offense goes... and does it excel when it needs to. That's the difference between myself/knowledgeable baseball fans... and dumbfuck staheads.

    Aw, poor Maddog and Gaius... they both argued that having Korey and Neifi around means less RBI's for the sluggers... and they weren't even right about their own fucking team. Idiots.

    Where's that team dependency? Oh, and in case you're curious, Aramis had his career high in RBI's in 2006. The Cubs scored 716 that year... and uh, yeah... that miserable team featured the great Juan Pierre and his .330 obp setting the table.  

  12. # Blogger Colin Wyers

    I plan on crunching some numbers for you to misinterpret at some point, The Hawk. But in the meantime, let's try this as a logic exercise.

    Let's say you have two guys, your team's leadoff and number 2 hitter. (Assume the NL, so the pitcher is hitting ninth.) They score 108 and 117 runs. Their number 3 hitter has 102 RBI.

    Now lets say that our hypothetical team goes out and gets a guy that has 125 RBIs, and puts him in the #3 spot instead. His leadoff and number 2 hitter on his last team scored 129 and 115 runs respectively.

    Now, assuming that everyone's performance remains the same into the next season, which of the following will occur?

    1. The #1 and #2 hitters will score more runs?
    2. The #3 hitter will drive in fewer runs?

    It's simple bookkeeping - every RBI is accounted for as a run. This isn't a question of anything other than how the official scorer records a baseball game. If you award a player an RBI, you award another player a run. If a team has more RBIs, it has more Rs.

    A player's R+RBI is nothing more or less than the portion of a team's run scoring credited to him by the official scorer.

    Go to your nearest tatoo parlor and have them inscribe this on you so you never, ever forget it: players do not score runs, teams score runs.

    Baseball is a team sport; therefore, run scoring is a team dependant activity. If you can't figure that out, then whatever problems you have aren't mine.

    And to clear something up: I didn't invite you here. I never requested your presence here. Whoever posted that link on your blog to my site sure as hell wasn't me. All of my fucking hick stathead readers were here long before you. If you don't like having them around, then crawl back over to your own little hole and stay there. But nobody is stalking you; you have wandered into the land of the statheads and you should expect to find statheads here. Once again: if you can't comprehend that, then it's not my fault.  

  13. # Anonymous The Hawk


    If you're going to lie, at least be good at it. I wouldn't have known this blog exists... nor would I have cared... were it not for this:

    And don't pretend it's not you when you're the first and third comment.

    Nice try. Also, one Gaius Marius never appeared at this site 'til I saw it. Same with Maddog. Don't lie... stick to your stats. You should thank me. To spite me, they'll now support you greatly. The herd phenomenon.

    Your logical argument makes perfect sense in regards to RBI's. And yet, the reality is... RBI's are a fickle commodity as I've shown with numerous examples. If the logic you presented applied to reality, then the RBI statistics of Vladimir Guerrero, Bobby Abreu, Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee, Carlos Lee, Alfonso Soriano, and more... would look dramatically different. But they don't.

    It's mindblowing that you can look at their RBI totals and not account for them. The silence is deafening. Work with anyone of those examples... I look forward to it. Gaius, or uh, VD, as I'll call him in honor of VI... and Maddog both used Korey and Neifi as examples, but the Cubs' own sluggers, produced more RBI's per game when these two were around! It's incredible these guys can make an argument counter to evidence.

    Now as to why you're logic argument doesn't translate into real RBI's. Just because a guy's in scoring position doesn't mean another guy's going to knock him in, no matter who the hitter is. Even if a guy sees more runners on base one year, he might drive more of them in the lesser year. Baseball performance can change from year to year... and RBI's happens to one of the more consistent parts of the game.

    If Player A hits before Player B... and Player A has a .340 obp one year and a .360 obp the next, it's not etched in stone that Player B will have more RBI's the next year. Reality simply doesn't work that way. He may or may not have more RBI's the next year, but far more of it will depend on how he hits with runners in scoring position from year to year... than Player A being on base 10-20 more times one year.

    Since you're so dumbfounded by my argument, then you should be equally dumbfounded by Vladimir Guerrero's RBI totals, but you're afraid of the subject... because it feels counter-intuitive to you. That's your problem, and statland's, not mine. You're not capable of more intellectual and mystical understandings of nature.

    Oh, and while you're being an enormously stupid motherfucker, both players and teams score runs. You know, like, if you cross home plate, you score and stuff. You know, like if Theriot just scored... the Cubs scored a run, Fukudome didn't just score a run, Theriot did. You follow?

    The main thing teams do is win or lose.  

  14. # Anonymous Anonymous

    Our son is off his meds again. Please do not take anything he says seriously. He is our 'special' boy.

    TheHawk's Parents  

  15. # Anonymous Maddog

    "I plan on crunching some numbers for you to misinterpret at some point"

    Colin, don't waste your time or energy. He won't even misinterpret what you put together because he won't even read it and you'd just be preaching to the choir because everyone else who visits your site already understand that RBIs are team-dependent. Any person who can apply the least amount of common sense possible understands that.

    The Hawk is just craving your attention. It's what he does. When The Cub Reporter stopped paying attention to him and banned him he came to ACB. When we stopped paying him the attention he requires, he went to 1060. When they stopped paying him any attention, he turned his own site into a pathetic little diary about ACB and 1060 and I unfortunately fell for it and gave him the attention he needed.

    Now that we're no longer paying attention to him, he's come here looking for attention and if you do what he's requesting, you've just given him the attention he endlessly searches for.

    All you need to know about this man is that the 3 Cubs blogs that I know he's talked on regularly at one point, he has been banned from all 3 of them.

    Don't waste your time.  

  16. # Anonymous Thelonious

    Colin, it seems that your blog has had its "angry and strident blog polemic" cherry popped, as it were.

    Soon, as your blog matures, you may finally develop an in-house eccentric. Don't worry, this is normal. Be it holy-rolling german ninja "Kurt" from 1060west fame, or a nutty cat lady "Kerrysotherwife" type, your very own resident half-baked deviant character is the sign of any mature blog, and should give your other readers a bit of amusement with the wacky schtick and general tomfoolery.  

  17. # Anonymous The Hawk

    Well Maddog,

    You lying, family-neglecting, drug addict imbecile...

    I certainly have your attention. Everything I write has your attention.

    And I must say, I'm flattered with how you've plagiarized me... insisting you won't be reading my work.

    You do recall, right, that it's the other way around, as you yourself note in this thread? I don't read a word of your bullshit... while you read every word of mine. It kills you, doesn't it?

    Well, Colin, the best threads ACB every had involved yours truly... and ditto for 1060West. I thank you for raising the 'runs produced' statistic to me. Bill James sure had something with that one.

    But alas, this is boring. The stathead mutual agreement society devoid of original ideas. And who was the one who divined the Cubs' shifts in the win/loss column last year with startling accuracy?

    Was it the babip freak who said we're done at 6-9?

    Was it the family-neglecting drug addict who insisted the Brewers wouldn't win 80 games and the Cardinals would win the division... and changed his mind so many times he made John Kerry look like a stalwart?

    Nope. It was me. Ciao.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link