Wreckard took a look at how the 2007 Cubs improved compared to the 2006 team and what kind of improvements this current team would need to make for next year. In the first part of this series. we took a look at payroll and named several players the Cubs should keep if they plan to contend next season. The second part focused on Aramis Ramirez‘s club option and whether they should retain him, as well as taking a look at two in-house platoon candidates to replace him. We also listed the players by position that make sense to be a part of next year’s team if they were to try and contend. In this one we’re going to find out how good that team would be.
To start with, you need to understand that at this point there’s not as much information available to get accurate projections like we will have access to after the season. I’m using ZiPS rest of season projections for wOBA for hitters and FIP for pitchers. I’ve included my own playing time estimates and for Ryan Flaherty, I’ve estimated his projected wOBA vs right handers to be .310. It may in fact be higher, but that’s good enough for now. For defense, I’ve used what I think the player is worth so you may disagree, but it’s not going to make much difference overall. We’re trying to get a ballpark figure for how much the Cubs need to improve this offseason to contend next year. That’s all.
| Hitter | Pos | PA | wOBA | WAR |
| Geovany Soto | CA | 550 | .349 | 3.7 |
| Darwin Barney | 2B | 550 | .300 | 1.0 |
| Starlin Castro | SS | 600 | .329 | 2.3 |
| Ryan Flaherty | 3B | 400 | .310 | 0.8 |
| Jeff Baker | 3B | 200 | .350 | 1.2 |
| Alfonso Soriano | LF | 550 | .329 | 0.4 |
| Marlon Byrd | CF | 550 | .338 | 2.8 |
If you recall, we came up with 2.3 WAR for Ramirez next season. Flaherty and Baker combine for 2 WAR. The Cubs save $11 million or more by letting Ramirez walk and lose only .3 WAR. The numbers for Baker, for what it’s worth, are vs lefties, which is really all he should be facing anyway. Even if the two combined for just replacement level next year, they still save the $11 million while losing $11 million in value (2.3 WAR). As long as they’re above replacement level, which is likely, it makes sense to go with the platoon over Ramirez. We need a 1st baseman and a right fielder. Below are the pitchers.
| Pitcher | IP | FIP | WAR |
| Matt Garza | 200 | 3.60 | 3.5 |
| Carlos Zambrano | 190 | 3.74 | 3.0 |
| Ryan Dempster | 200 | 3.56 | 3.6 |
| Randy Wells | 175 | 4.03 | 2.1 |
| Carlos Marmol | 75 | 2.91 | 2.4 |
| Sean Marshall | 75 | 2.82 | 1.9 |
| Andrew Cashner | 60 | 4.35 | -0.1 |
If you’re wondering how Ryan Dempster could still be projected as highly as he is, it’s because his 5.00 ERA has been rather unlucky to say the least. His FIP is 3.70, but his xFIP is 3.37 and his SIERA is 3.44. After a BABIP over the last 3 years of roughly .295, it’s balloned to .331 this season. His LD% is actually the same as it was in 2008 when his BABIP was .280. He left about 73% of the runners on base the last 3 years, but only 67% this season.
It’s actually quite remarkable that Dempster has been allowed to stick in the rotation. Only 10 qualified starting pitchers have an ERA worse than he does and in year’s past, Lou would have yanked such a pitcher from the rotation long ago. Mike Quade has, on occasion, been critical of Dempster, but he’s left him in the rotation. That’s a pleasant surprise based on the actions by this organization in the past.
This roster, plus league minimum guys to fill it out, as well as the rest of the 40-man, would make about $100 million. The Cubs current payroll is $135 million. This roster would be projected to win about 77 games (28.5 WAR plus 48.6 replacement level wins). We haven’t factored in age yet.
We could probably take about 2 wins away if we factor in age and I gave all the starters a ful season’s worth of playing time so let’s knock off another 2 for injuries/ineffectiveness. 73 wins. That’s where the Cubs are starting with the roster above. In the next part we’ll look at available players and how much they’d add to this roster.
Comments
At what point with Dempster do we stop pleading a lack of luck and begin to seriously consider that he is in decline, much like Z?
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
73 wins seems awfully high for a collection that is going to lose 100 games this year while having at least a half a season from Ramirez and Pena included.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Can that all be attributed to luck and injuries?
Aisle424Quote Reply
Anyone here subscribe to the Joe Sheehan newsletter? Apparently he ripped Hendry and the Cubs a new one today.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
matt szrrrurur showing off his non secondary skills with a HR
dylanjQuote Reply
austin kirk pitches tonight. Predictably his season has gone to hell since his no hitter
dylanjQuote Reply
fun with md’s hatred of korean signings
this guy http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2011/03/oakland-signs-top-korean-catcher-for-510000/
has done this so far
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=P&sid=t480&t=p_pbp&pid=606285
he’s worse than the 50 year old Cuban swingman we signed
dylanjQuote Reply
I don’t know about that. Last year, Z was yanked from the rotation to make room for Lilly, and Gorzelanny, Silva, Wells, and Dempster were all off to good starts, ERA-wise. This year, by contrast, the Cubs have had major problems with starting pitching depth.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]At what point with Dempster do we stop pleading a lack of luck and begin to seriously consider that he is in decline, much like Z?[/quote]When his numbers over the last 15 starts are any different than what he’s done the last few years. Since May 1st, he has a 3.45 ERA. With an FIP of 2.81.
Zambrano has been in decline for several years. Dempster had a bad month and since then has been as good or better than he has since his return to the rotation in 2008. That’s despite a .333 BABIP during that timeframe. Overall this season, Dempster has the same K% and BB% that he’s had over the last few years. Velocity is the same. GB/FB rate the same since 2009.
Dempster is every bit as good as he’s been since 2008. That his ERA is through the roof can be easily explained (high BABIP, low LOB%, high HR/FB rate). Zambrano has continued to decline despite a low HR/FB rate. Huge difference between these two pitchers.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]I don’t know about that. Last year, Z was yanked from the rotation to make room for Lilly, and Gorzelanny, Silva, Wells, and Dempster were all off to good starts, ERA-wise. This year, by contrast, the Cubs have had major problems with starting pitching depth.[/quote]Good point.
mb21Quote Reply
Pirates on ESPN for the first time since 2004!
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]At what point with Dempster do we stop pleading a lack of luck and begin to seriously consider that he is in decline, much like Z?[/quote]His numbers have been good after his terrible month of April. I think the best sign (at least the earliest one we’re likely to detect) would be a decline in his strikeout rate or pitch velocity. This year, both are are consistent with previous years.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]73 wins seems awfully high for a collection that is going to lose 100 games this year while having at least a half a season from Ramirez and Pena included.[/quote]This was a 75-80 win team entering the season. I was expecting 71-72 wins out of these players. It’s not a terrible roster. I’ll take a look in the next one using different current win scenarios. There’s little doubt though that this team can contend if they’re willing to match the current payroll.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]When his numbers over the last 15 starts are any different than what he’s done the last few years. Since May 1st, he has a 3.45 ERA. With an FIP of 2.81.
Zambrano has been in decline for several years. Dempster had a bad month and since then has been as good or better than he has since his return to the rotation in 2008. That’s despite a .333 BABIP during that timeframe. Overall this season, Dempster has the same K% and BB% that he’s had over the last few years. Velocity is the same. GB/FB rate the same since 2009.
Dempster is every bit as good as he’s been since 2008. That his ERA is through the roof can be easily explained (high BABIP, low LOB%, high HR/FB rate). Zambrano has continued to decline despite a low HR/FB rate. Huge difference between these two pitchers.[/quote]After a great May and June,, he’s been bad in July, too. I think we need to keep a close eye on him, and Hendry would do well to try and deal him. I think what we’re seeing is the beginning of the end for Dempster.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
He just had 1 really bad start in July that throws his numbers off for the month (which is only 16 innings). Even then, he had some bad luck–the fly ball lost in the sun, a few groundballs that went for hits. He’s struck out more than 1/4 of all the batters he’s faced this month, and the only things throwing his ERA off are his BABIP and LOB%. You have to regress those very heavily over small sample sizes do to the low signal-to-noise ratio.
ACTQuote Reply
And that 1 terrible start was made under extremely unfavorable conditions. The previous start, he went 8 innings with no runs or walks allowed.
ACTQuote Reply
And once again, I said “do” when I meant “due.”
ACTQuote Reply
I’m going to be blunt: I think about 75% of this talk about “bad luck” where SP are concerned is complete and utter bullshit.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]After a great May and June,, he’s been bad in July, too. I think we need to keep a close eye on him, and Hendry would do well to try and deal him. I think what we’re seeing is the beginning of the end for Dempster.[/quote]I disagree. There just aren’t any signs that he’s in decline, MO. A high BABIP and low LOB% aren’t signs of decline. That’s just shitty luck. Everything else points to him being the same pitcher he’s been since 2008. Whether we like it or not, this team is going to try to contend and the Cubs would find it difficult to replace someone like that. If you can get more than he’s worth in a trade, go for it, but I’m not trading him for even equal value.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I’m going to be blunt: I think about 75% of this talk about “bad luck” where SP are concerned is complete and utter bullshit.[/quote]Ok then, why even bother looking at anything other than ERA? If luck is bullshit, ERA is the ideal stat to measure a pitcher. We know how fucked up ERA is.
I’m sorry you disagree about Dempster, but the evidence is quite clear. If you can’t be convinced, you can’t be convinced. I won’t waste my time, but the idea that the Cubs should quickly get rid of him as if he’s having a bad season is something that only one stat shows to be true. And every other metric show him to be as good as he’s been.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I’m going to be blunt: I think about 75% of this talk about “bad luck” where SP are concerned is complete and utter bullshit.[/quote]How much do you think we should regress BABIP? He has a .391 BABIP over 16 innings. What do you think that makes his true talent over that period?
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I disagree. There just aren’t any signs that he’s in decline, MO. A high BABIP and low LOB% aren’t signs of decline. That’s just shitty luck. Everything else points to him being the same pitcher he’s been since 2008. Whether we like it or not, this team is going to try to contend and the Cubs would find it difficult to replace someone like that. If you can get more than he’s worth in a trade, go for it, but I’m not trading him for even equal value.[/quote]Oncfe again, I’m through with all this “luck” talk. It smacks of lazy reasoning. Dempster hasn’t been bad this year. And there’s no question that playing in front of the Cubs defense hurts the SPs across the board. I’m not saying that either of those things are not the case. But he’s been pretty inconsistent, and his bad outings has been really, really bad. I’m not saying he’s going to fall off a cliff; I’m saying he’s never going to be as good as he was in 2008 and 2009. He’ll have his stretches, for sure, just like in May and June. He’s still a good SP. But I’m concerned, based on what he’s done this year that those stretches of brilliance are going to become fewer and farther between.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]How much do you think we should regress BABIP? He has a .391 BABIP over 16 innings. What do you think that makes his true talent over that period?[/quote]I have no idea, but this luck talk is out of hand, to the point of being chimeric.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
By the way, the LAST thing I want an organization I root for to do is make a decision based solely on ERA.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]By the way, the LAST thing I want an organization I root for to do is make a decision based solely on ERA.[/quote]Well, that’s what they do anyway. But I think even Jim (unlike myself) knows better than to react too strongly to Dempster’s up and down season.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Of course those stretches will become less frequent. He’s not getting any younger. I guess I just don’t understand the argument here. All of his advanced pitching metrics show him to be very good. In fact, he’s in the top 30 in most of those advanced metrics. Just like he has been the last few years.
I’ve been paying close attention to Dempster all year. His bad start early one was largely the result of some bad luck. i said it at the time and to no surprise he began pitching as well as his numbers otherwise indicated he would. He’s done that since his horrible month.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Of course those stretches will become less frequent. He’s not getting any younger. I guess I just don’t understand the argument here. All of his advanced pitching metrics show him to be very good. In fact, he’s in the top 30 in most of those advanced metrics. Just like he has been the last few years.
I’ve been paying close attention to Dempster all year. His bad start early one was largely the result of some bad luck. i said it at the time and to no surprise he began pitching as well as his numbers otherwise indicated he would. He’s done that since his horrible month.[/quote]I never said he wasn’t good. I said I think we’re seeing the beginning of his decline, and baffling ourselves with all this talk of luck isn’t doing anyone any favors.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Over Dempster’s last 28 days he’s held batters to an OPS of .652. it’s .676 over his last 14. in terms of getting hit, he’s been better over the last month and last two weeks than he has all season.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I never said he wasn’t good. I said I think we’re seeing the beginning of his decline, and baffling ourselves with all this talk of luck isn’t doing anyone any favors.[/quote]It’s not doing you any favors. I’m perfectly OK to call his ERA bad luck based on every other statistic that matches almost identically to what he’s done in recent years.
mb21Quote Reply
Look, what I’m saying is that it’s enough to say that Dempster’s HR/FB and BABiP are above his career norms and it’s reasonable to expect, though certainly no guarantee, that those will normalize as the season goes on. And we can say that without this chimerical talk about “bad luck” which makes his regression some kind of metaphysical necessity. His peripherals are good, so there’s reason to expect better things, but there’s no guarantee those better things will happen. And 9 ER is not “bad luck.” It’s bad pitching. And it’s okay to say that.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Over Dempster’s last 28 days he’s held batters to an OPS of .652. it’s .676 over his last 14. in terms of getting hit, he’s been better over the last month and last two weeks than he has all season.[/quote]Once again, I never said Dempster is bad. I said he’s still pitching well, but the nature of his inconsistencies makes me think we’re seeing the beginning of a decline.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]It’s not doing you any favors. I’m perfectly OK to call his ERA bad luck based on every other statistic that matches almost identically to what he’s done in recent years.[/quote]So then why even point to the ERA? If the bad numbers are simply a matter of luck, why even discuss them? Just find the numbers that are good and talk about them, and ignore the numbers that are bad because, hey, that’s just a matter of luck.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
If a stat is “bad,” in the way that we know ERA and RBI to be for instance, then I see no reason to even bring it into the discussion. Especially when it leads you to base arguments on luck. Use the numbers that mean something and avoid the luck talk altogether.
It’s easy: the metrics that measure those things over which Dempster has the greatest degree of control are perfectly in line with his career numbers. So he should be fine.
See? Easy. Ockham’s Razor.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Here’s what I’m tired of: Pitcher X has a bad game and it immediately leads to a bunch of handwaving and chatter about “bad luck.” That’s just lazy reasoning, and it’s the same kind of dogmatic thinking that people who do appreciate advanced metrics abhor in those who do not appreciate them. I love getting the advanced look into the game at places like OV and others. It’s made me a better fan and a better thinker. But there’s a very ugly positivist sentiment developing among the stat-minded that I think does all of us a disservice.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]If a stat is “bad,” in the way that we know ERA and RBI to be for instance, then I see no reason to even bring it into the discussion. Especially when it leads you to base arguments on luck. Use the numbers that mean something and avoid the luck talk altogether.
It’s easy: the metrics that measure those things over which Dempster has the greatest degree of control are perfectly in line with his career numbers. So he should be fine.
See? Easy. Ockham’s Razor.[/quote]If you have factors in the game that are a) out of a player’s control and b) affect the outcome of the game, how do you describe them if not in terms of ‘luck’? I’m not taking sides here, but I will cop to not really understanding what the alternatives are.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Did you ever think that in a bad game you can also have bad luck?
As for pointing to his ERA, I pointed to it initially to highlight Dempster’s solid projection and to explain the projection. I’m sorry you didn’t like it that way, but I have no intention of ever doing it any differently.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=uncle dave]If you have factors in the game that are a) out of a player’s control and b) affect the outcome of the game, how do you describe them if not in terms of ‘luck’? I’m not taking sides here, but I will cop to not really understanding what the alternatives are.[/quote]Exactly. Every ball in play has some degree of luck. Sometimes it’s good luck. Sometimes it’s not. Sometimes you can pitch great and have shitty results. Sometimes you can pitch poorly and have great results. The reason is that it’s mostly luck.
If you have two pitchers who throw 1 inning, allow a triple and a walk, you could get entirely different results. One pitcher could walk a batter and then give up the triple. Maybe the fielder makes an error and 2 runs score. The other could give up the triple first, walk a batter and get a GIDP. One pitcher allowed 2 runs, the other 0, but they both pitched the exact same inning. If the results in those situations aren’t luck, then I have no idea what luck is.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=uncle dave]If you have factors in the game that are a) out of a player’s control and b) affect the outcome of the game, how do you describe them if not in terms of ‘luck’? I’m not taking sides here, but I will cop to not really understanding what the alternatives are.[/quote]Note them and explain that there’s nothing a pitcher can do about Carlos Pena committing two errors on one play. It’s not luck. One player made a mistake. End of story.
But complaining about BABiP and bad luck when a pitcher is tossing eminently hittable pitches up there is lazy. Pitchers can’t control where a batted ball goes, but they should be able to control where the ball gets thrown. You keep gunning belt high 4 seamers in there and hanging sliders and get whacked around because of it, that’s not bad luck, no matter how many errors Castro makes behind you. It’s bad pitching coupled to bad defense.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Pitcher A: 7 IP, 7 H, 2 BB, 7 K, 1 R
Pitcher B: 7 IP, 7 H, 2 BB, 7 K, 7 R
Pitcher A spreads his hits and walks out over 7 innings. Pitcher B allows the first 6 batters to reach and gives up a home run and then never allows another hit.
Same performance. Same exact performance. The only thing that is different is sequencing and that is luck.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Note them and explain that there’s nothing a pitcher can do about Carlos Pena committing two errors on one play. It’s not luck. One player made a mistake. End of story.
But complaining about BABiP and bad luck when a pitcher is tossing eminently hittable pitches up there is lazy. Pitchers can’t control where a batted ball goes, but they should be able to control where the ball gets thrown. You keep gunning belt high 4 seamers in there and hanging sliders and get whacked around because of it, that’s not bad luck, no matter how many errors Castro makes behind you. It’s bad pitching coupled to bad defense.[/quote]Throwing numerous belt-high fastballs in one start is also luck, MO.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Pitcher A: 7 IP, 7 H, 2 BB, 7 K, 1 R
Pitcher B: 7 IP, 7 H, 2 BB, 7 K, 7 R
Pitcher A spreads his hits and walks out over 7 innings. Pitcher B allows the first 6 batters to reach and gives up a home run and then never allows another hit.
Same performance. Same exact performance. The only thing that is different is sequencing and that is luck.[/quote]No, the only thing different is that one pitcher gave up 7 R and the other didn’t. Calling the differnece “luck” is lazy thinking, especially when we can point to exactly why the difference occurred, be it an error, a bloop double, a grand slam that a fan reached over the wall and caught, or the pitcher being hungover. Simply falling back on “luck” is dogmatism of the worst sort.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Throwing numerous belt-high fastballs in one start is also luck, MO.[/quote]No, it’s not. It’s shitty pitching.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Alright, I gotta go cook dinner. Wish me luck.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]No, the only thing different is that one pitcher gave up 7 R and the other didn’t. Calling the differnece “luck” is lazy thinking, especially when we can point to exactly why the difference occurred, be it an error, a bloop double, a grand slam that a fan reached over the wall and caught, or the pitcher being hungover. Simply falling back on “luck” is dogmatism of the worst sort.[/quote]I’m not sure I understand the harm in trying to quantify the variance between performance and results, which is what I’m taking away as your objection here. Granting that many of us do describe that variance in the aggregate with the generic term ‘luck’ do you have an equally difficult time tolerating metrics that merely try to aggregate, say, results? Is team winning percentage a shitty metric because it isn’t sufficiently descriptive?
Not meaning to pick a scab or anything, but I don’t understand what the harm is here. Would it be OK if we called it ‘hamburger time’ instead of ‘luck’?
uncle daveQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]No, the only thing different is that one pitcher gave up 7 R and the other didn’t. Calling the differnece “luck” is lazy thinking, especially when we can point to exactly why the difference occurred, be it an error, a bloop double, a grand slam that a fan reached over the wall and caught, or the pitcher being hungover. Simply falling back on “luck” is dogmatism of the worst sort.[/quote]I no longer have any idea what you’re even arguing. If you think one isn’t luck then you need to show me evidence that pitchers perform differently in certain situations and why we should expect different pitchers to perform different in those situations.
Two pitchers having the exact same line that yield dramatically different results is the definition of luck. Maybe you don’t like it or don’t think it should be, but it is luck. There are a lot of lazy thinking analysts out there who would agree and I’d love for the Cubs to hire many of those lazy thinkers because the Cubs would be better off because of it.
You’re exactly right in that we can point to the difference. That difference is that one pitcher pitched the same as the other one, but happened to give up his hits at the wrong time leading to more runs. That’s luck.
Because if it’s not, MO, all we need on the stat pages is ERA. ERA is king without luck. ERA is the only stat you need. I know you don’t believe that so I think you’re just arguing to argue.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]No, it’s not. It’s shitty pitching.[/quote]It could be both.
mb21Quote Reply
I think I sort of understand MO’s argument. I think he means to say that while luck is inherent in the game of baseball, sometimes the pitcher makes his own luck (belt-high pitches, for example…or being John Grabow).
Also thought I’d share this, because it’s kind of cool in light of the news of Dave Cameron’s ailment:
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/joe-west-ejects-dumb-stupid-leukemia/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Pitcher A: 7 IP, 7 H, 2 BB, 7 K, 1 R
Pitcher B: 7 IP, 7 H, 2 BB, 7 K, 7 R
Pitcher A spreads his hits and walks out over 7 innings. Pitcher B allows the first 6 batters to reach and gives up a home run and then never allows another hit.
Same performance. Same exact performance. The only thing that is different is sequencing and that is luck.[/quote]
This implies that pitchers never pitch to the moment or situation. Don’t you think pitchers with more skill are able to get out of a jam because they are more highly skilled? The scenario you present seems to imply that a pitcher never pitches to the situation. A pitcher’s ability to focus and hit spots and make pitches is a real skill and not just luck. Allowing a walk in a given situation is not the same regardless of the situation. The ability to get a strike out or someone to hit a grounder isn’t luck either, imo.
melissaQuote Reply
[quote name=melissa]This implies that pitchers never pitch to the moment or situation. Don’t you think pitchers with more skill are able to get out of a jam because they are more highly skilled? The scenario you present seems to imply that a pitcher never pitches to the situation. A pitcher’s ability to focus and hit spots and make pitches is a real skill and not just luck. Allowing a walk in a given situation is not the same regardless of the situation. The ability to get a strike out or someone to hit a grounder isn’t luck either, imo.[/quote]
False: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/halladay_v_lee_does_sequencing_count/
mb21Quote Reply
Did you intentionally exclude Tyler Colvin MB? I’m inclined to think he could provide more than the .4 WAR Soriano is projected at if he’s merely average in LF. That would be at league minimum. At worst, he’s a 4th OF at league min.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I think I sort of understand MO’s argument. I think he means to say that while luck is inherent in the game of baseball, sometimes the pitcher makes his own luck (belt-high pitches, for example…or being John Grabow).
Also thought I’d share this, because it’s kind of cool in light of the news of Dave Cameron’s ailment:
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/joe-west-ejects-dumb-stupid-leukemia/%5B/quote%5DYeah, but that’s not what MO is saying. He’s essentially saying mentioning luck is bullshit and lazy. If we’re talking about Dempster’s April, he pitched like shit AND he was unlucky. In his last start he pitched like shit AND was unlucky. It’s not one or the other and I never implied it was. Over the course of a season a pitcher or hitter is going to play quite poorly even over an extended period of time. Some of that will be bad luck and some of it will just be shitty performance. At the same time, the same player will perform over his head. He’ll have gotten lucky and played quite well.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Did you intentionally exclude Tyler Colvin MB? I’m inclined to think he could provide more than the .4 WAR Soriano is projected at if he’s merely average in LF. That would be at league minimum. At worst, he’s a 4th OF at league min.[/quote]no, but I might include him in the next one. Soriano needs a platoon partner. He should not see the field vs righties and should not see the field after the 6th inning in any game.
mb21Quote Reply
Indians win in a walkoff on Jason Kipnis’ first ML hit.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
I don’t know. Tyler’s minor league performance this year isn’t encouraging: .276 OBP–not counting today’s 0-for-3—in the hitter-happy PCL. Not. Good.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Yeah, but that’s not what MO is saying. He’s essentially saying mentioning luck is bullshit and lazy. If we’re talking about Dempster’s April, he pitched like shit AND he was unlucky. In his last start he pitched like shit AND was unlucky. It’s not one or the other and I never implied it was. Over the course of a season a pitcher or hitter is going to play quite poorly even over an extended period of time. Some of that will be bad luck and some of it will just be shitty performance. At the same time, the same player will perform over his head. He’ll have gotten lucky and played quite well.[/quote]
I think the disconnect I have is that I believe in luck in baseball and I don’t think it’s bullshit, but I think looking at the balls in play and how hard they’re hit, as well as pitch location, is important to do before you attribute something to bad luck…maybe that was his issue.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
BJax is 2-for-3 so far, with a sac fly, a ROE and two infield hits.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]BJax is 2-for-3 so far, with a sac fly, a ROE and two infield hits.[/quote]Luck!
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Luck![/quote]
Yeah, if he were lucky he’d be 3-for-3…damn you, official scorer!
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Runs scored in each inning by the Rangers today:
3 3 3 5 4
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]I don’t know. Tyler’s minor league performance this year isn’t encouraging: .276 OBP–not counting today’s 0-for-3—in the hitter-happy PCL. Not. Good.[/quote]
yuck. whats up with the AAA shortstop Marwin whateverhisnameis
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
Houston Astros will lock up #1 pick after this series against the Cards, it seems. Not even putting up a fight.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]yuck. whats up with the AAA shortstop Marwin whateverhisnameis[/quote]Marwin Gonzalez has put up a .352 /.385 /.521 line in 81 plate appearances since being promoted to AAA.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I think the disconnect I have is that I believe in luck in baseball and I don’t think it’s bullshit, but I think looking at the balls in play and how hard they’re hit, as well as pitch location, is important to do before you attribute something to bad luck…maybe that was his issue.[/quote]Except that getting hit hard is also luck. Say you know for certain you have a pitcher who is going to allow 20 home runs over the course of 200 innings, but over a 3 start stretch he might allow 9. Sure, he probably made some bad pitches, but even that was luck. It just happened that of the 20 home runs he allowed, most of which were going to be on bad pitches, they all happened to be within a certain period of time.
That’s what I’m saying. Luck isn’t limited to babip or left on base percentage. Luck involves throwing 9 consecutive pitches down the heart of the plate at 85 mph. Terrible pitches for sure and odds are they were hit very hard, but the fact you threw so many consecutively is bad luck. Dempster had a horrible April in which he made many pitches that were ridiculously bad, but that in itself was bad luck. Rather than spreading that out over 162 games, a lot of shitty pitching happened in one month. It happens.
mb21Quote Reply
Isn’t he a no-power SS though?
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Marwin Gonzalez has put up a .352 /.385 /.521 line in 81 plate appearances since being promoted to AAA.[/quote]
Is he legit defensively at SS? Is he a prospect? Perhaps a utility guy? Why does he get no recognition?
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Isn’t he a no-power SS though?[/quote]
The .521 was SLG, correct? Thats hitting, even though I know its the PCL.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
Marwin has almost nothing in terms of home run power. His high slugging is a product of singles and doubles. I honestly don’t know anything about him. I’ve never heard him discussed as a prospect, and his offensive numbers before this year aren’t very good.
ACTQuote Reply
Think about how many bad pitches any pitcher is going to make in one start. If he gives up 0 runs, odds are he got away with almost every bad pitch he made. It was fouled off, popped up, or a deep fly ball that was caught. That’s luck. Now imagine the same pitcher who throws the same number of bad pitches and instead of getting lucky, they’re all line drive doubles and towering home runs. That, too, is luck. The same pitcher made the same shitty pitches with completely different results.
That’s partly what has happened to Dempster in April. Every bad pitch he threw was hammered. He made more bad pitches than normal to make matters worse. As expected, his bad pitches diminished and the batters stopped hammering as many of them.
mb21Quote Reply
2011 is Gonzalez’s first season since rookie league in 2007 that he’s been an above average hitter: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa329201&position=SS
No idea about his defense.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Except that getting hit hard is also luck. Say you know for certain you have a pitcher who is going to allow 20 home runs over the course of 200 innings, but over a 3 start stretch he might allow 9. Sure, he probably made some bad pitches, but even that was luck. It just happened that of the 20 home runs he allowed, most of which were going to be on bad pitches, they all happened to be within a certain period of time.
That’s what I’m saying. Luck isn’t limited to babip or left on base percentage. Luck involves throwing 9 consecutive pitches down the heart of the plate at 85 mph. Terrible pitches for sure and odds are they were hit very hard, but the fact you threw so many consecutively is bad luck. Dempster had a horrible April in which he made many pitches that were ridiculously bad, but that in itself was bad luck. Rather than spreading that out over 162 games, a lot of shitty pitching happened in one month. It happens.[/quote]
Okay, I sort of see what you’re saying and this probably involves sequencing which I’m kind of blurry on. But my thinking is that the pitcher can make certain pitches to hit his spots, so if he shakes off the catcher and decides to throw batting practice meatballs, that should be on him and not on luck. However, if the batter whiffs or pops up on those pitches, then I think the pitcher was “lucky” as it were. Maybe the disconnect is with semantics, hehehe.
Then you have the situations where the pitcher makes a good pitch, but Albert Pujols reaches way out of the strike zone and golfs it out of the yard anyway, so that’s probably bad luck too. You execute your pitch, but the batter was simply better than you.
I think I have a better time accepting “luck” when a pitcher is dinked with bloop singles and seeing-eye grounders than if he’s slammed with a bunch of line drives just because of the contact thing. But I’m definitely cognizant of luck’s existence.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]2011 is Gonzalez’s first season since rookie league in 2007 that he’s been an above average hitter: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa329201&position=SS
No idea about his defense.[/quote]His Total Zone at shortstop is pretty bad, but b-ref only has it up to 2009 for him. I also have no idea how accurate Total Zone is for the minor leagues (or even the major leagues, for that matter). http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=gonzal009mar
ACTQuote Reply
It’s not about who or what it’s on. The performance is and always is on the pitcher regardless of what those results say. The 5.00 ERA is on Dempster every bit as much as the very good peripherals are on him. Nothing to do about that. But each pitcher has is going to make so many bad pitches. Think of it in terms of a power hitter. He’s going to hit so many home runs. He may hit 7 in 8 days and then not any for 3 weeks. Sure, he was pounding the ball in that one week, but what happened was that every single pitch that was hittable he made perfect contact with. That is luck. Then you have the 3-week stretch where he whiffed on every hittable pitch.
Of Dempster’s horrible pitches, they got pounded. The same thing happens in any terrible start. It’s not like the pitcher is suddenly different on the mound. He’s trying to get the hitters out and sometimes it’s the hitter that gets luck whereas other times it’s the pitcher who gets lucky.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Runs scored in each inning by the Rangers today:
3 3 3 5 4[/quote]
23 hits and 2 walks though 6 innings… with the Twins committing 3 errors too. Incredible.
JacksRevengeQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]His Total Zone at shortstop is pretty bad, but b-ref only has it up to 2009 for him. I also have no idea how accurate Total Zone is for the minor leagues (or even the major leagues, for that matter). http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=gonzal009mar%5B/quote%5DI would assume since he’s a SS who can’t hit, but is already at AAA that he’s a good fielder. You just don’t see defensively challenged SS who can’t hit promoted to the high levels in the minors.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]His Total Zone at shortstop is pretty bad, but b-ref only has it up to 2009 for him. I also have no idea how accurate Total Zone is for the minor leagues (or even the major leagues, for that matter). http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=gonzal009mar%5B/quote%5DMarwin is 11 runs below average at SS according to TotalZone. By contrast, Starlin was 9 runs above average in the minors.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]It’s not about who or what it’s on. The performance is and always is on the pitcher regardless of what those results say. The 5.00 ERA is on Dempster every bit as much as the very good peripherals are on him. Nothing to do about that. But each pitcher has is going to make so many bad pitches. Think of it in terms of a power hitter. He’s going to hit so many home runs. He may hit 7 in 8 days and then not any for 3 weeks. Sure, he was pounding the ball in that one week, but what happened was that every single pitch that was hittable he made perfect contact with. That is luck. Then you have the 3-week stretch where he whiffed on every hittable pitch.
Of Dempster’s horrible pitches, they got pounded. The same thing happens in any terrible start. It’s not like the pitcher is suddenly different on the mound. He’s trying to get the hitters out and sometimes it’s the hitter that gets luck whereas other times it’s the pitcher who gets lucky.[/quote]
I can accept that. I was going to ask whether there was some threshold at which one stops talking about luck and just concedes that the pitcher sucks but I think you covered that already.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Looks like Cardinals fans have finally had enough of The Riot: http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2011/7/25/2291389/ryan-theriot-is-the-st-louis-cardinals-weakest-link
ACTQuote Reply
By the way, RC, sequencing is just the sequence in which the events happen. Take the following innings.
BB, 1B, FO, K, HR, K
FO, K, HR, BB, 1B, K
The first line there is 3 runs allowed. The second is 1.
However, in each inning the pitcher struck 2 out, walked a batter, allowed a single, allowed a home run and had a fly out. Two entirely different results.
The sequencing of the events matter and there’s no difference in pitching in various situations. Pitcher B just happened to allow the solo home run before the other two runners got on and pitcher A allowed the 3-run home run. The results are the results and the ERA for pitcher A will obviously be higher. Pitcher A will be seen to have a worse inning, but in reality he did not.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I can accept that. I was going to ask whether there was some threshold at which one stops talking about luck and just concedes that the pitcher sucks but I think you covered that already.[/quote]I don’t think there is one. The shitty pitcher or players stand out. Their peripherals indicate they are a well below average player and while there is certainly some bad luck involved, there is also nothing to indicate the player will improve significantly. At the same time, the well above average players also stand out. They may be lucky (most of the good ones have more good luck than bad luck) and some may be unlucky, but their peripherals will indicate to use they are in face a damn good ballplayer.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]By the way, RC, sequencing is just the sequence in which the events happen. Take the following innings.
BB, 1B, FO, K, HR, K
FO, K, HR, BB, 1B, K
The first line there is 3 runs allowed. The second is 1.
However, in each inning the pitcher struck 2 out, walked a batter, allowed a single, allowed a home run and had a fly out. Two entirely different results.
The sequencing of the events matter and there’s no difference in pitching in various situations. Pitcher B just happened to allow the solo home run before the other two runners got on and pitcher A allowed the 3-run home run. The results are the results and the ERA for pitcher A will obviously be higher. Pitcher A will be seen to have a worse inning, but in reality he did not.[/quote]
Does sequencing just assume that the pitcher will pitch the same way to a batter no matter what the base-out situation is? I think that might have been something Melissa and MO have issues with, but I’m not sure.
Not that you guys have issues (dying laughing) Sorry that sounded wrong, no offense.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
20-2, Texas over Minnesota. How many unwritten rules were broken tonight?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I also think it’s interesting that of the Cubs starting pitchers with 30 innings or more, they all have an ERA at least .67 runs higher per 9 than their FIP (Zambrano). Garza .76, Wells .95, Dempster 1.3, Coleman 1.83, Davis 2.69. All of them have significantly higher BABIP’s than their career average.
mb21Quote Reply
Gonzalez has a .365 BABIP while with Iowa. In a discussion where luck is coming up a lot, that should show you what happens when a player starts getting lucky. Before his promotion to Iowa, he had a .335 BABIP with Tennessee, where he put up an impressive .352 wOBA over 64 games. In 86 games with Tennessee last year, he had a putrid .282 wOBA and only a .268 BABIP.
Now, it’s possible he improved in some ways which would lead him to the increases in BABIP and wOBA, but if you can’t identify anything else, you have to admit the drastic difference is just based on luck.
JacksRevengeQuote Reply
The Twins are lucky this one only counts as one loss.
binkyQuote Reply
Andrus made his 19th error. Castro no longer leads the majors!
ACTQuote Reply
Oh wow. Not only is Chris Davis the only Ranger starter not to have a multi-hit game (0-6!), he also made 2 errors. Sucks to be him.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Does sequencing just assume that the pitcher will pitch the same way to a batter no matter what the base-out situation is? I think that might have been something Melissa and MO have issues with, but I’m not sure.
Not that you guys have issues (dying laughing) Sorry that sounded wrong, no offense.[/quote]No, there’s little to no difference in terms of pitching with runners on base. Pitchers will generally perform worse with runners on of course, but if you take two equal pitchers, you’d expect them to pitch just as well as the other in all base/out situations. Halladay/Lee was a great example a year ago. From Tango:
,
mb21Quote Reply
VERY painful catcher’s interference on the Pirates there. Ouch.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=JacksRevenge]Gonzalez has a .365 BABIP while with Iowa. In a discussion where luck is coming up a lot, that should show you what happens when a player starts getting lucky. Before his promotion to Iowa, he had a .335 BABIP with Tennessee, where he put up an impressive .352 wOBA over 64 games. In 86 games with Tennessee last year, he had a putrid .282 wOBA and only a .268 BABIP.
Now, it’s possible he improved in some ways which would lead him to the increases in BABIP and wOBA, but if you can’t identify anything else, you have to admit the drastic difference is just based on luck.[/quote]yep, without scouting data, that’s the only the possible explanation. If we were to learn from scouts that he’s just smacking line drives all over the field all day long after making some improvements to his swing then we would have to consider that. But without that knowledge, it’s just luck.
mb21Quote Reply
speaking of luck: http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=pit
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]yep, without scouting data, that’s the only the possible explanation. If we were to learn from scouts that he’s just smacking line drives all over the field all day long after making some improvements to his swing then we would have to consider that. But without that knowledge, it’s just luck.[/quote]Marlon Byrd saw him play and liked what he saw. Is that good enough?
ACTQuote Reply
Not sure about the Cubs, but it seems like a lot of teams look at a pitcher in terms of not really advanced metrics, but in terms of velocity and performance. If they see a guy making good pitches consistently and hitting his spots, they’re likely to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if he’s getting hit, unless he fails to be effective at all. Which I guess is sort of like dead reckoning an FIP.
binkyQuote Reply
Michael Cuddyer (1B) came in to pitch for the Twins. He’s been pretty unlucky so far.
ACTQuote Reply
I take it back. He’s the luckiest son of a bitch who ever lived.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]I take it back. He’s the luckiest son of a bitch who ever lived.[/quote]
Did he have a Wade Boggs knuckleball?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Good day for Kinsler. Cubs should trade Barney for Kinsler. They can throw in Wellington Castillo, if needed.
binkyQuote Reply
I didn’t see the game, but here’s the sequence:
M Napoli doubled to deep center.
M Moreland singled to shallow center.
E Chavez grounded out to first, M Napoli to third, M Moreland to second.
I Kinsler walked.
E Andrus flied out to left.
D Murphy popped out to shortstop.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]I don’t know. Tyler’s minor league performance this year isn’t encouraging: .276 OBP–not counting today’s 0-for-3—in the hitter-happy PCL. Not. Good.[/quote]
Totally. His stay in AAA has been discouraging at best. He’d struck out in 6 consecutive ABs before finally grounding out to 2nd tonight in his 0-4 2K effort. His K% has climbed to 27% and his K:BB is 10.4:1. He needs to stop being so terrible.
Him sucking is a bummer because he really does have great power. According to hit tracker, only 3 of his 20 homers last year were “lucky” or “just enough”.
Chris DickersonQuote Reply
If the date wasn’t listed on those images, does anyone really think they could pick out which one was a ridiculously bad start and which one was an awesome start?
Our opinions of how bad a pitcher pitches is colored by how well the hitters perform and NOT how well the pitcher performs.
mb21Quote Reply
Wow, his sliders are all over the damn place.
ACTQuote Reply
Our opinions of how well a manager is doing is determined by the team’s winning percentage.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Our opinions of how well a manager is doing is determined by the team’s winning percentage.[/quote]
That’s pretty true for the most part.
WTF is that in your profile picture? Is that Ronald McDonald as a coked out zombie?
Oh never mind, I was looking at the thumbnail…need a new prescription (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
It’s the Breaking Bad bear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey-jpMM0Yus
mb21Quote Reply
Re: Tyler Colvin et al. That whole drafting the “best athlete” theory isn’t really panning out. Or is it just me?
binkyQuote Reply
Okay, I’m starting to think next year is a bust already, since we still have Jim Hendry and the trade deadline is nearly upon us. I appreciate your guys’ optimism, but it’s not working for me. We’re in the same boat that we were at the end of last year: we need a 1B and an SP. We got those and it failed. I don’t see how those two pieces are going to turn this team around, in any realistic sense. The best we can hope for, near as I can tell, is that the cubs actually play to projection next year and finish middle of the pack. .
But the year after next, things are finally going to change. All new GM. Hard choices. Working for the future. Yeah, you just wait. 2-3 years, they’ll really start turning this team around.
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Did he have a Wade Boggs knuckleball?[/quote]Nope. He does, however, have an impressive repertoire of mid-80’s pitches: http://yfrog.com/kj55989165p
ACTQuote Reply
At least we’re not Tampa Bay… for all the smart things they do and all the shiny toys they have to play with, they left Jennings down to rot in AAA while they played the likes of our hero Sam Fuld and Jason Ruggiano and Johnny Damon, etc… and now he’s up wih the big club and tearing it up!
I know he’d only be worth a win or two more than Fuld, but I’m also thinking he would have made the rest of the team better too. I know it’s a small sample size, but it’s not like we didn’t already think he could play like this (and those two wins are still really valuable when you’re as close to contending as the Rays are).
JacksRevengeQuote Reply
I’m still enjoying reading these pieces, but I’m still not seeing the happy ending that gets the Cubs to a division champion, unless we’re talking the PCL American North.
JacksRevengeQuote Reply
[quote name=JacksRevenge]At least we’re not Tampa Bay… for all the smart things they do and all the shiny toys they have to play with, they left Jennings down to rot in AAA while they played the likes of our hero Sam Fuld and Jason Ruggiano and Johnny Damon, etc… and now he’s up wih the big club and tearing it up!
I know he’d only be worth a win or two more than Fuld, but I’m also thinking he would have made the rest of the team better too. I know it’s a small sample size, but it’s not like we didn’t already think he could play like this (and those two wins are still really valuable when you’re as close to contending as the Rays are).[/quote]
Ya agreed. Most fans I know, myself included, have been clamoring for Jennings from at least late May, if not earlier. They were lucky enough to get a good few weeks out of Fuld to start the season, and could have came out ahead. Too, where Fuld excels (defense), Jennings wouldn’t have been a slouch himself.
You can also include Guyer in that mix, as he could have been up much earlier as well.
MishQuote Reply
Look at dj all interested in the minors and shit.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
AA is happy that Matt Moore isn’t around to own it anymore. 102 IP, 68 H, 131 K, 28 BB.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
SF is cleaning up on UDFA so far, dj. Good OL/DL depth with a possible NT replacement for Franklin in Ian Williams:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2011/07/49ers-undrafted.html
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
looks like we keep A Smith, McDonald, Goldson and Baas and let Lawson & Franklin walk
dylanjQuote Reply
Like Smith, Baas and McDonald, not so much Goldson. Lawson needs to go to a 4-3 team to play OLB. We’ll miss Franklin.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
ARI:
Pat Devlin, QB, Delaware
Kristofer O’Dowd, OL, USC
IND:
Jake Kirkpatrick, C, TCU
Scott Tolzien, QB, Wisconsin
ATL:
Noel Devine, RB, West Virginia
SF:
Jeremiah Masoli, QB, Ole Miss/Oregon
DET:
Kendric Burney, CB, North Carolina
SEA:
Jeron Johnson, S, Boise State
PIT:
John Clay, RB, Wisconsin
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Southern Miss WR DeAndre Brown —> PHI
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
so teams can sign their rookies, UDFA and own FA today?
dylanjQuote Reply
Yes. They can also start trading players.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://www.csnbayarea.com/07/26/11/Roster-glance-49ers-begin-adding-undraft/landing.html?full_args=07/26/11/Roster-glance-49ers-begin-adding-undraft/landing&blockID=543636&feedID=5936
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
can gibson step up and get some time at OLB?
dylanjQuote Reply
Absolutely. He has the athleticism to be the perfect WILL in our system. Plus, he spent a year learning under Harrison and Woodley.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Texas-Rangers-look-at-heavy-hitters-Carlos-Beltran-Ubaldo-Jimenez-and-Hiroki-Kuroda-as-deadline-approaches
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Sounds like Froman is going to ATL. I’d take a flyer on Mustain and Adam Weber.
LSU WR Terrence Tolliver would make a great WCO WR.
Florida DB Will Hill, UCLA K Kai Forbath and BC OLB Herzlich are the other names I like.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
You can get ARI to win the Super Bowl at 100/1 right now. Do it before they trade for Kolb.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
According to Olney clubs are really not willing to give up C-level prospects for guys like Byrd(not specifically mentioned just my own eval). If that’s true then maybe this is why Hendry isn’t going to start trading away as there is no point in getting c-level guys that likely won’t ever be useful. The Cubs may feel it’s better to roll the dice on catching lightening rather than ship everyone out.
Olney link: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=6802561
JManQuote Reply
[quote name=JMan] The Cubs may feel it’s better to roll the dice on catching lightening rather than ship everyone out.
[/quote]
Plus, that is just how they do things. Of course they’re not going to get anybody back of any use, they aren’t trading anyone of any real value. I wouldn’t give up much for Marlon Byrd. He’s fine and all, but he’s not a difference-maker on any team that’s contending. Same thing with Fukudome.
Pena might be with the power bat, defense, and excellent clubhouse reputation. I could see him being very attractive to a team like Pittsburgh. But otherwise, unless they are willing to part with their top relievers or their power-hitting catcher (and even he is debatable this year), they’re not getting anything much but salary relief in any deal they make.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]You can get ARI to win the Super Bowl at 100/1 right now. Do it before they trade for Kolb.[/quote]
I think you’re overrating Kolb, Ryno.
BerseliusQuote Reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/john-beck-turned-away-at-redskins-park/2011/07/25/gIQAFik6YI_blog.html
(dying laughing)
I don’t know what’s funnier, that Redskins security couldn’t recognize their starting QB or the bit below that Rex Fucking Grossman has a shot at taking the job (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0726-cubs-chicago–20110726,0,3559549.story
Dave van Dyck with some incredibly insightful statistical analysis of… eye color during day games.
It’s like every sabermetric thing I’ve ever read is now just child’s play.
Chris DickersonQuote Reply
the problem is they will still be arizona
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I think you’re overrating Kolb, Ryno.[/quote]
Believe me, I’m not. But they have a good offense and no QB. Not a bad defense either. This team was in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago and it’s not that different today.
A decent QB gives them a legit shot at the Super Bowl. At 100/1, that’s a shot you take.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Herzlich —-> NYG
Keiser —-> CAR
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Now Devlin —> MIA (Dolphins, not POW)
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
they dont have a RB, and their defense is fucking terrible. TERRIBLE
dylanjQuote Reply
Looks like SF is done with UDFA.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
SF beat them 65-13 last year. They aren’t doing anything
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Plus, that is just how they do things. Of course they’re not going to get anybody back of any use, they aren’t trading anyone of any real value. I wouldn’t give up much for Marlon Byrd. He’s fine and all, but he’s not a difference-maker on any team that’s contending. Same thing with Fukudome.
Pena might be with the power bat, defense, and excellent clubhouse reputation. I could see him being very attractive to a team like Pittsburgh. But otherwise, unless they are willing to part with their top relievers or their power-hitting catcher (and even he is debatable this year), they’re not getting anything much but salary relief in any deal they make.[/quote]True but I don’t think it’s unrealistic to think they should be able to obtain a guy like Vance Worley for Byrd. Worley is likely a 4/5 starter in his career. The Cubs most certainly won’t get a top end prospect for guys like Byrd or Pena but they should still be able to get a guy that’s near being useful to the ML team whether it be reliever or back-end starter.
JManQuote Reply
where is Vince Young going to land?
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]they dont have a RB, and their defense is fucking terrible. TERRIBLE[/quote]
Ryan Williams, RB, Va. Tech.
Add Patrick Peterson and Sam Acho to their defense, plus a year of experience to the pieces they drafted last year (Dan Williams, Washington, Schofield, etc.).
I’m not saying they’re awesome or anything, but they’re in the easiest division in football and went to the Super Bowl a few years ago. $10 will get you $1,010 is a good bet.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]where is Vince Young going to land?[/quote]
I thought MIA for sure, but it sounds like they’re in on Orton. OAK would be a good spot for him, but I’ve heard no interest. WAS is his best bet as a starter.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
VY could make several teams in the NFL better right now. I have to believe someone will take a shot on him. And this time it’ll be a team that actually wants him.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb
A full season of VY would have improved all but about eight teams last year.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/206873/report-titans-to-make-hasselbeck-huge-offer
(dying laughing)
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/206873/report-titans-to-make-hasselbeck-huge-offer
(dying laughing)[/quote]
(dying laughing), maybe they can acquire Delhomme to back him up too
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), maybe they can acquire Delhomme to back him up too[/quote]
…then flip him for Nolasco.
/Yellon’d
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Sickel’s Cubs Top 20 review. His last line at the end sums it up:
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/7/26/2293839/chicago-cubs-2011-pre-season-top-20-prospects-in-review
MishQuote Reply
.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Ryan Williams, RB, Va. Tech.
Add Patrick Peterson and Sam Acho to their defense, plus a year of experience to the pieces they drafted last year (Dan Williams, Washington, Schofield, etc.).
I’m not saying they’re awesome or anything, but they’re in the easiest division in football and went to the Super Bowl a few years ago. $10 will get you $1,010 is a good bet.[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9PwvGEWJA0
Bromine BariumQuote Reply
Sorry for the Rays stuff, but it’s fascinating to me:
MishQuote Reply
(dying laughing) @ BABIP
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17292391
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Sickel’s Cubs Top 20 review. His last line at the end sums it up:
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/7/26/2293839/chicago-cubs-2011-pre-season-top-20-prospects-in-review%5B/quote%5DWhat's funny is that DJ LeMahiue is probably deserving of being in the top 5 at this point.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mish]His last line at the end sums it up:
[/quote]
Ugh, redundant sentence is redundant.
MishQuote Reply
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17257929
Upton was probably going to get a triple off that broken bat bomb anyway, but I like how the RF kinda loafed after the ball after it bounced away from him.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Sickel’s Cubs Top 20 review. His last line at the end sums it up:
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/7/26/2293839/chicago-cubs-2011-pre-season-top-20-prospects-in-review%5B/quote%5DNothing new, but depressing to look at it all at once
Good news and bad news. Good that Szczur is improving, bad that everyone else sunk giving him the illusion of rising more than he really is.
ACTQuote Reply
I’m the best MC in the whole gym class.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
White Sox, 3.5 games out, considering turning over roster and rebuilding:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/26/white-sox-gm-debating-whether-to-turn-over-entire-roster/
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/206873/report-titans-to-make-hasselbeck-huge-offer
(dying laughing)[/quote]I love that Palmer would rather retire than play for the Bengals next year.
The WreckardQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Here’s what I’m tired of: Pitcher X has a bad game and it immediately leads to a bunch of handwaving and chatter about “bad luck.” That’s just lazy reasoning, and it’s the same kind of dogmatic thinking that people who do appreciate advanced metrics abhor in those who do not appreciate them. I love getting the advanced look into the game at places like OV and others. It’s made me a better fan and a better thinker. But there’s a very ugly positivist sentiment developing among the stat-minded that I think does all of us a disservice.[/quote]I think it’s important to remember that, when discussing stats, “luck” is just an abstract, easier to understand way of discussing what it really is – variance.
Any statistic worth its salt tries to remove variance to show you the true statistical value of something. ERA is too volatile – it doesn’t remove variance.
The WreckardQuote Reply
[quote name=The Wreckard]I think it’s important to remember that, when discussing stats, “luck” is just an abstract, easier to understand way of discussing what it really is – variance.
Any statistic worth its salt tries to remove variance to show you the true statistical value of something. ERA is too volatile – it doesn’t remove variance.[/quote]
I was definitely fence-sitting during this whole debate yesterday because I could easily see where MO was coming from when it seems like anything a pitcher does that results in a ball being put into play is essentially explained away by something like “luck.”
I think by thinking of it as variance makes it a lot easier to digest after some of Dempster’s (as the example from yesterday) shittier outings.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Let’s say that an average batter looks horrible on a swing 1 out of 10 swings. That batter is going to have at-bats throughout the course of the season where he has 3 horrible swings in a row. It’s the same as flipping a coin. If you flip it enough times, there will be stretches where it lands consecutively on heads or tails a number of times. That nickel didn’t perform poorly over that 6 flip stretch in which it landed exclusively on tails. Heads was lucky. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
The reason I’m comfortable with using terms like “luck” is that people are far to eager to attribute a player’s numbers directly to his performance. Even if a player’s performance level is perfectly constant, the results will vary over periods of time, just as sometimes a coin will land heads 5 times in a row. If a hitter goes 4-5 one day and 0-4 the next day, the null hypothesis is that this is random variation, not that his performance level changed, and the same goes even for monthly, and to a lesser extent, yearly stats.
ACTQuote Reply
A well below .500 team is going to win 3 in a row at some point during the season. When it happens they may appear to be having a great series, but the fact a well below .500 team wins 3 in a row is in itself luck. A .500 team will win 5, 6 or 8 games in a row at some point. They didn’t suddenly become better. They probably performed better during that stretch, but they were the same team before that winning streak. Maybe they batted .350 with 8 home runs. That is luck. Or maybe they hit .419 after the 7th inning with 3 walk-off home runs. Looks awesome, but it’s luck. Take that .500 team over a long sample and they’ll win as many as they lose.
I guess to me, luck is about probability. The probability of Dempster having a bad game isn’t high, but let’s say it’s 15%. The probability of him combining many of them in a row like he did in April is not at all high, but it can happen.
We’ve seen the same thing with Zambrano pretty much every single April of his career.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]The reason I’m comfortable with using terms like “luck” is that people are far to eager to attribute a player’s numbers directly to his performance. Even if a player’s performance level is perfectly constant, the results will vary over periods of time, just as sometimes a coin will land heads 5 times in a row. If a hitter goes 4-5 one day and 0-4 the next day, the null hypothesis is that this is random variation, not that his performance level changed, and the same goes even for monthly, and to a lesser extent, yearly stats.[/quote]Well said. Much better said than my attempt to explain it. That’s exactly why I’m comfortable using luck and will continue to do so.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=The Wreckard]
Any statistic worth its salt tries to remove variance to show you the true statistical value of something. ERA is too volatile – it doesn’t remove variance.[/quote]I don’t really agree with this. A good hitter’s stat, say OBP, doesn’t remove variance, either. If you want to estimate a batter’s true OBP skill, you have to regress it or take a huge sample size. The main criticisms of ERA have more to do with its systematic biases (it favors groundball pitchers who allow more errors, it ignores what a pitcher does when there “should” be 3 outs, it overrates pitchers with good defenses behind them, etc.). RA (aka RA9) is favored by some, not because it is less volatile, but because it removes these biases. Stats like FIP may be more useful over a short period of time because it measures more stable metrics, but over a large sample size, you have to look at runs allowed.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]I don’t really agree with this. A good hitter’s stat, say OBP, doesn’t remove variance, either. If you want to estimate a batter’s true OBP skill, you have to regress it or take a huge sample size. The main criticisms of ERA have more to do with its systematic biases (it favors groundball pitchers who allow more errors, it ignores what a pitcher does when there “should” be 3 outs, it overrates pitchers with good defenses behind them, etc.). RA (aka RA9) is favored by some, not because it is less volatile, but because it removes these biases. Stats like FIP may be more useful over a short period of time because it measures more stable metrics, but over a large sample size, you have to look at runs allowed.[/quote]
That’s fair. I should have said, any statistical analysis tries to remove variance. That’s what we’re trying do when we look at BABIP, if the sample size isn’t big enough – which it often isn’t in baseball, even over the course of a season.
The WreckardQuote Reply
(h/t Chicago Vince)
Aisle424Quote Reply
Al tweet:
.
I voted for the Throw it back shirt because I figure that is the one Al would like least.
Aisle424Quote Reply
And you can vote more than once if you go back to the link over and over.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Al tweet:
.
I voted for the Throw it back shirt because I figure that is the one Al would like least.[/quote]
How badly would one be treated if one did not actually throw it back?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]How badly would one be treated if one did not actually throw it back?[/quote]
I don’t know, but alcohol usually makes people do stupid shit for really dumb reasons. If you ever really wanted to keep a ball hit by an oppposition player, just bring a fake ball. It doesn’t even have to be a good one. I’ve seen white balls disappear into the crowd and brown ones get thrown back.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I think I’d just keep it and tell other people to go to hell.
I’m also amazed how much disposable income people have to be paying $7 a pop (or $3 on Tuesday!) for lukewarm asswater.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Al carries a stash of throw back balls in his
nutknapsack.Suburban kidQuote Reply
I might have just thought this was funny in my own head and it never really happened, but I swear I once saw a tennis ball come flying back from the street after a homerun landed out on Waveland.
Aisle424Quote Reply
KG:
Matt Szczur, OF, Cubs (High-A Daytona): 2-for-4, 2B, HR (2), 2 R, RBI, BB. Florida State League showing is best described as streaky; .250/.286/.417 in 13 games.
MishQuote Reply
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110725/sports/707259857/
Bruce Miles interviewing Quade.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/2012-nl-central-champion-cubs-part-4.html
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I think I’d just keep it and tell other people to go to hell.
I’m also amazed how much disposable income people have to be paying $7 a pop (or $3 on Tuesday!) for lukewarm asswater.[/quote]
The problem is that it becomes you versus one hundred, and those people are usually drunken assholes.
Aisle424Quote Reply