Author: myles

Cubs Swing And Miss on Sanchez

There 17 minutes where we were all pretty certain that the Cubs were going to sign Anibal Sanchez to a 5 year, 75 million dollar contract. Those were some great times…

Obviously, we know what happened next (or at least have a pretty good idea). Sanchez’ agent took the deal back to the Tigers and played the Cubs up against them. The Tigers bit and gave Sanchez the extra year he’d been wanting and an extra 5 million, too.

At first blush, 16 AAV seems like a huge gamble on a player who has had significant injury concerns for a good amount of his career. On the other hand, there is an ever-dwindling market of pitchers that can play at the middle/front of a rotation, and Sanchez has certainly been that guy for the past 3 years.

Kind of sad, but this will give the Cubs at least payroll flexibility. Question is, what’s left that they can use that payroll ON?

Better Know a Cub: Travis Wood

Travis Wood is traveling in the wrong direction.

Wood made his debut in the majors in 2010, throwing 102.2 innings of 3.51 ERA ball. He wasn’t lucky, either: his FIP was 3.42. As an age-23 season, it was quite impressive: he even threw a 3.31 K/BB ratio in there for good measure.

He hasn’t repeated his good fortune since. In 2011, his ERA ballooned to 4.84, and his FIP rose to 4.06 as well. His BABIP went a lot higher (.324 from .259), and he lost a K per 9 while gaining a BB per 9. Things were not going in the right direction, and the Reds jettisoned him in the 2011 offseason for premier set-up man Sean Marshall.

As a Cub, his season was arguably worse in 2012. Travis got his ERA down to 4.27, but his FIP climbed all the way to 4.84. His BABIP was crazily, crazily low (.244), so he was generally hit-lucky, but HR-unlucky (his rate essentially doubled to 12.7% HR/FB and 1.44 HR/9).

What Travis Wood will we see in 2013? Will it be the very good 2010 model, or the much worse 2012 version?

Pitch Selection

Wood throws 3 pitches with any regularity, though he’s been mixing in an 80mph slider more this year.

His first offering is an 89 mph fastball. It’s not a very good pitch (below average, by linear weights), but it’s not an absolute killer. He throws it around 50% of the time. His cutter is around 87 mph and he threw it 30% of the time in 2012. PITCHf/x rates it as above average. His changeup makes up another 10% of his pitches, and it’s 80 mph. His changeup was rocked last year, probably because it ended up being a home run nearly every time he threw it. Lastly, Wood mixed in an 80 mph slider 10% of the time last year, and it was surprisingly effective. It was far and away his best pitch according to PITCHf/x last year.

This jives somewhat with the early scouting reports I’ve seen on Wood. Many of them praise his great changeup, but it doesn’t get hitters out at the major league level (and it hasn’t all 3 years). He started developing his cutter around 2009, which has turned into his best pitch, and a weapon he’ll have to use effectively if he wants to stick in the bigs.

Stuff

Travis is never going to overpower major league hitters. He’s essentially average in inducing swings, with the minor exception of not fooling people outside. The problem, though, is that hitters make contact with Wood at an alarming rate outside of the zone. That’s the primary driver for his decreased strikeout rate and very indicate of a lack of dominance. Players that swing at Travis Wood’s pitches make contact at the 12th highest rate in baseball, among contemporaries like Kevin Millwood, Lucas Harrell, and Bronson Arroyo. He’s 6th in the league in O-contact% (the percentage of times a ball is out of the zone, the batter swings, and makes contact anyway). This is the surest recipe for not striking guys out (in fact, Wood’s 6.87 is the highest of the top 10 in this category).

Summary

Travis Wood is never going to strikeout a batter per 9 innings. He’ll likely struggle to strikeout 8 per 9 innings. For this reason, he’ll never amount to more than a #4 or #5 starter (unless he has a preternatural ability to locate his pitches that we haven’t seen yet). I think the ceiling for Wood is very low, but the floor is pretty high. He’s consistenly shown the ability to get some outs in the major league level, and there is value for an innings-eater at the back of less-than-impressive rotations (not a lot of value, but some).

Wood also has shown the ability to retire lefties at a pretty healthy rate (.215/.287/.342), so on a good team, he might be a swingman/LOOGY. As it happens right now, he’s our #5 starter. Time will tell if he can stay that way.


Better Know a Cub: Darwin Barney

Darwin Barney is an odd duck. He doesn’t get on base all that often (.299 OBP last year, .305 career). He has no power (7 HR last year is more than double the amount he has hit in any other year of his professional career).  He doesn’t walk (5.6% last year, 2.4% less than the league average). He doesn’t steal bases (6 last year). Offensively, he was pitiful by any standard by any position (7th lowest wOBA in baseball last year, and the 6 players above him are a veritable who’s who of awful players).

And yet, Darwin Barney was slightly better than a league-average 2B last year. How on earth can that be?

Barney had one of the best defensive seasons of all time, a legendary season that saw him break the alltime errorless streak and win the Gold Glove while not hitting a lick. He actually tied Danny Espinosa for the highest total Fld (a FanGraphs Stat) in 2012. He blew the field away in UZR and ErrR.

The big problem with all of this is that I just am not certain that Darwin Barney is the Brooks Robinson of second basemen. Last year, Barney didn’t just provide most of his value with his glove, he provided all of it. What happens next year if he hits .268/.311/.357, as Bill James projects, but only provides a win or two with his glove? Barney quickly becomes a utility infielder, albeit a great defensive one. 

There’s no real strength to Barney’s offensive game, and the only thing you can look to for him to improve is him getting hit-lucky (BABIP of .273 last year). His career average is .291, which suggests that he’s just a poor hitter.

However impossible it may be, I’d love to trade Darwin Barney to a team that really appreciates his defensive value (and there is some value to be had there). Barney is rosterable if he can get a wOBA around .300, but only as a utility infielder. If he takes a leap forward (I honestly think he’s overmatched at the MLB level, though; nothing in his minor or major league history points to him being much better than he is right now), he could be a good option at 2nd for some teams that are defense-oriented (the Mariners are a great fit if they are giving on Ackley, one of the 6 players that incredibly had a lower wOBA than Barney last year). In the interim, he’s a fine stopgap until Watkins is ready (late 2013/early 2014 if it all goes well). For what it’s worth, I project that Barney could net a prospect in a team’s 15-20 level- he’s more of a throw-in.

It took a historic, unrepeatable defensive season for Barney to be worth 2.5 wins. Unless he can take a step forward towards mediocrity with the bat, I don’t see that happening again.

Fixing the 2013 Cubs

In my last post, I detailed the 10 places (what a high number!) that the Cubs could stand to upgrade by merely getting an average player. Those 10 places were:

1. Centerfielder
2. Third baseman
3. Ace Pitcher
4. Rightfielder
5. Ace reliever (closer)
6. #2 pitcher
7. #3 pitcher
8. Fireman reliever
9. Utility infielder
10. Utility outfielder

What have the Cubs done to fix these positions?

1. Centerfielder
Last year, the Cubs primary infielder was, believe it or not, Reed Johnson. He provided 1.0 WAR before being traded, and afterwards a timeshare of DeJesus, Jackson, and Campana brought the season to a close. The Cubs so far have decided to move DeJesus to CF full-time, which will provide 1 additional WAR over last season. DeJesus is projected to have 2 WAR, but the league average at CF is 3; while the Cubs have probably improved, they still have some work to do in this area.

2. Third baseman
The Cubs have had a forced hand as far as 3B is concerned; there were only a few options available, and none of them ideal (Youkilis, Chavez, Keppinger). In the end, they just re-signed the oft-injured Ian Stewart and are ready to roll the dice with some permutation of him and Valbuena at the hot corner. I’m not convinced Stewart will provide much more than a single WAR; on the other hand, I don’t know how reasonable it is to have expected more from this position. All 3 3B are huge injury risks, and none of them are going to put you over the top or be here when you expect to be, so you might as well sign the cheaper in-house version of Chavez. 

3. Ace Pitcher
The Cubs haven’t really signed a true #1 this offseason but only because there are only two available. Greinke was #7 in baseball this year, and signed with the Dodgers. Sanchez was 22nd in the league this year, and the Cubs haven’t really been rumored in play with him so far. He’d fit the bill for sure, though. The other way to “fix” this is to develop Shark into a #1 pitcher, which is possible but not certain. I’d really like the Cubs to sign Sanchez, and I’d be willing to give him a very long deal for it.

4. Rightfielder
This problem was exacerbated when the Cubs decided to move DeJesus to center (where he still isn’t valuable enough). The Cubs gave Schierholtz the starting job this off-season; he provided 1.5 WAR last year and this year I expect him to do the same. He have not really addressed this problem at all, but the options to do so via free agency are little and less.

5. Ace reliever (closer)
The Cubs addressed this already, by signing Kyuji Fujikawa. He’s got the coolest name in the MLB, and I also think he’s good for 1 WAR. Funky deliveries from Asian relievers are always good the first year, even if they aren’t good afterwards. Think of Shingo Takatsu or Koji Uehara; he doesn’t throw like either of those guys, but even Takatsu was good his first year. This is the first problem the Cubs had that I think they legitimately solved, and the potential for a lot of surplus value here exists as well.

6. #2 pitcher
If the Cubs sign Sanchez, they fix this problem by way of making Shark the #2 (a role in which he would already be above-average). It’s another in a long line of reasons the Cubs should sign Anibal. The Cubs’ contingency if Shark is the de facto ace, is putting Garza in this role, where I expect (if healthy) he’d be a legitimate #2 option. I project him for 3 WAR. Feldman also has a chance to grab 3 WAR and be a #2 option if he’d stay healthy.

7. #3 pitcher
If the Cubs sign Sanchez, Matt Garza is the #3 pitcher on t
he Cubs. If this was the rate, that would be a GREAT sign that the Cubs would be a strong pitching team (at least on paper). As it stands, Feldman or Baker would fall into that role. Both have a good shot at 2.5 WAR, and I’d like to depend on only one of them. 

8. Fireman reliever
The Cubs missed out on Grilli this offseason, who would have fit into this role nicely. The signing of Fujikawa puts  this role squarely in Marmol’s hands, but Marmol will be traded this offseason almost certainly. I’d like the Cubs to sign another very good reliever; do that (and sign Sanchez), and you could make a case for the Cubs’ staff to be not just average but with upside to be legitimately above average.

9. Utility outfielder
10. Utility infielder

These guys are not super important, but we still haven’t really acquired them. One hopes that the addition of Schierholtz means that one of Campana or Sappelt can be a serviceable 5th outfielder, but that only works if Soriano isn’t traded; if he is, you’re counting on both of them. The infielder isn’t even on the periphery right now.

In summary, the Cubs haven’t really fixed their outfield issues, and it’ll get a lot worse if/when Soriano is traded. If they miss out on Sanchez, they’ll also have made a few risky bets to cover the starters. Third base is still a black hole, however unavoidable, but the bullpen has at least been slightly upgraded. The Cubs still have a lot of work to do if they want to be truly, truly competitive.

Anatomy of the 2012 Cubs

C     2.0 [1.2]
1B   2.0 [1.8]
2B   2.5 [2.5]
SS   2.5 [3.3]
3B   2.8 [0.9]
RF   2.7 [1.7]
CF   3.0 [1.0]
LF   2.5 [4.0]
C2 [0.5] [0.5]
O4 [0.5] [0.6]
O5 [0.5] [-2.1]
I5   [0.5] [0.7]
I6   [0.5] [0.0]
Position: 22.5 [16.0]

SP   4.5 [3.3]
SP   2.7 [2.1]
SP   2.0 [1.4]
SP   1.3 [1.2]
SP   0.6 [0.7]
RP   1.5 [0.7]
RP   1.0 [0.6]
RP   0.7 [0.2]
RP   0.5 [0.1]
RP   0.4 [0.1]
RP   0.2 [0.1]RP   0.1 [0.0]
Pitching: 15.5 [10.5]

26.5 + 43 = 69.5 wins from 25-man roster

This makes sense, to me. This 25-man roster probably played 80% of all innings this year, so 26.5 * .8 = 21.2 wins, which when you add to 43 gives you 64 wins, within my tolerance for 61 actual wins. This of course assumes a complete replacement sum of 0 from our non-opening 25; this is a dubious proposition at the very best (and likely the main driver as to why we won 61 instead of 64 – our replacement pitching was embarassingly below replacement).

The main things I take from this is that the Cubs last year lacked an ace pitcher, a competent bullpen, a third baseman, a proper right and centerfielder, a third baseman, a 5th outfielder, and a 6th infielder. These are things we already knew, but now I can kind of order them by need:

1. Centerfielder
2. Third baseman
3. Ace Pitcher
4. Rightfielder
5. Ace reliever (closer)
6. #2 pitcher
7. #3 pitcher
8. Fireman reliever
9. Utility infielder
10. Utility outfielder

Though the 5th outfielder is technically the largest gap in WAR, I am assuming that replacement level players are plentiful (because they are).

In the next post, I’ll see how the Cubs are addressing these 10 needs (if they are at all).

Anatomy of an Average Team

In FanGraphs, a “replacement-level” team would win 43 games. That is to say, a team that is only comprised of AAA fodder, talent freely available to any team, would expect to win that amount. I wondered, then, how a team could take that and be average.

I looked at the FanGraphs leaders at each position this year and took adjusted the innings to qualify until I got as close 30 members at each position as I could. Then, I took the median WAR to simulate a team that just so happened to have the most average team possible, and this is what I came up with:

C     2.0
1B   2.0
2B   2.5
SS   2.5
3B   2.8
RF   2.7
CF   3.0
LF   2.5
C2 [0.5]O4 [0.5]O5 [0.5]I5   [0.5]I6   [0.5]Position: 22.5

SP   4.5
SP   2.7
SP   2.0
SP   1.3
SP   0.6
RP   1.5
RP   1.0
RP   0.7
RP   0.5
RP   0.4
RP   0.2
RP   0.1
Pitching: 15.5

38 wins + 43 replacement wins = 81 wins.

Keep in mind, I guessed the win contributions for the bench, but it seems accurate to me.

In the future, I’d like to use this as a guide to diagnose our team strengths and weaknesses, but you can clearly see where some them start to manifest.

A neat thing that seems counterintuitive at first is how weak 1B are at the moment. This is, I believe due to the positional adjustment playing first base has right now. There just aren’t a lot of elite offensive forces that can only play 1B. Most offensive titans right now also enjoy the ability to play CF or 2B or some other position on the field (and any of them are vastly more difficult than 1B).

Keep in mind, also, that DH’s aren’t represented here. There are very few “true” DHs, and since is the is a back-of-the-napkin exercise anyway, I’m not especially worried.

Where Will the Cubs' Wins Come From?

Let’s take a closer look at the Cubs in 2012. I’m going to include the projected starters for 2012 (if they are still on the team) in green, and the players no longer expected to make the opening 25 in red. Bench players are in blue.

C
Castillo 1.2
Soto 0.5
Recker 0.2
Hill -0.1
Lalli -0.4
Clevenger -0.7

1B 
Rizzo 1.8
LaHair 0.7

2B 
Barney 2.5
Cardenas -0.2
DeWitt -0.4

SS
Castro 3.3

3B
Valbuena 0.9
Stewart 0.1
Vitters -1.2

RF
DeJesus 1.7
Johnson 1.0
Sappelt 0.9
Baker 0.0

CF
Campana 0.6
Jackson 0.2
Byrd -0.8
Mather -1.5

LF
Soriano 4.0

Pitching
Shark 3.3
Dempster 2.1
Maholm 1.4
Garza 1.2
Russell 0.7
Wood 0.7
Germano 0.6
Camp 0.6
Marmol 0.2
Volstad 0.2
Rusin 0.1
Chapman 0.1
Cabrera 0.1
Maine 0.0
Berken 0.0
Bowden 0.0
Socolovich 0.0
Lopez -0.1
Ascencio -0.1
Wells -0.1
Castillo -0.2
Parker -0.2
Wood -0.3
Coleman -0.3
Raley -0.4
Beliveau -0.4
Corpas -0.5
Hinshaw -0.6
Dolis -0.6

That’s 23.5 WAR on the team with a backup infielder, a backup catcher, a starting RF, 2 starters, and 3 relievers left to add. That also assumes each player will repeat their 2011 performance (which clearly won’t happen).

The Cubs have addressed their RF hole with Nate Schierholtz (1.5 WAR), their C hole with Dioner Navarro, (0.4 WAR) and their 2 starters with Baker and Feldman (2.8 WAR and 2.3 WAR, respectively). The 3 relievers (in my estimation) are Fujikawa, McNutt, and one guy that isn’t on the radar yet, and same goes with the infielder. Fujikawa and McNutt will (in my estimation, again) are good for 1.0 and 0.5 WAR next year, and I’m assuming the infielder and last reliever will combine for 1.0 WAR. That’s another 9.5 WAR there. Add the 25 man together and you start with 33.0 WAR.

Add all of that together, and the jump-off point for the 2012 season is 76 wins. However, as I said, that isn’t likely to be the case. Let’s bring the 25 players together with their 2011 WAR (2012 predictions in green):
Castillo 1.2 2.0
Rizzo 1.8 3.5
Barney 2.5 2.5
Castro 3.3 4.0
Stewart 0.1 1.0
Soriano 4.0 2.5
DeJesus 1.7 2.0
Schierholtz 1.5 1.5
Navarro 0.4 0.5 
Valbuena 0.9 1.0
UTIL #3 0.5 0.5
Sappelt 0.9 0.7
Campana 0.6 0.8
Garza 1.2 3.0
Samardzija 3.3 3.5
Feldman 2.3 3.0
Baker 2.8 2.5
Wood 0.7 1.5
Marmol 0.2 1.0
Fujikawa 1.0 1.0
Russell 0.7 0.7
Camp 0.6 0.5
McNutt 0.5 0.5
Beliveau -0.4 0.5
RP #7 0.5 0.5

That’s 40.7 WAR right now, which turns the team into a 83.7 win club.

Before you get the pitchforks, hear me out. This assumes that only these 25 players play for the Cubs this year. Clearly, there will be some trades and injuries. Think of this as a “best injury case scenario.” It’s also clearly possible that some players will collapse/explode.

It also identifies quite a few places we can upgrade. For example, 3B is projected to get a single win from it’s starter. No outfield position is good for more than 2.5 WAR, and there are always top-flight outfielders available (for tons of money) in free agency. We have no stud pitchers, either. If we were able to find a 2.5 WAR 3B, and a 2.5 WAR RF, and another 2.5 WAR pitcher, that’s 5 wins for the team for players the equivalent of Darwin Barney. These are options that shouldn’t be too hard, or too expensive, to find.

I don’t think the Cubs are playoff-bound this year, but I also don’t think that they are completely terrible. They were sunk by some terrible performances like Clevenger and Mather, when in reality they should be getting replacement-level performances from those players. I feel confident that even if the Cubs trade off an asset or two, they’ll hover around 73-76 wins this season, which is a lot better than 61.

Better Know a Cub: Hector Rondon

The Rule V draft affected the Cubs likely more than any other team in baseball this year. Theo & Co. lost Starling Peralta in the major league portion, and Michael Burgess/Matt Cerda/Alvy Jimenez in the minor league portion.

However, it wasn’t all bad for the Cubs, as they landed a flamethrower in Hector Rondon. Will he stick? I think the chance is very good that he does.

Rondon was plucked out Venezuela by the Indians organization in 2006, and Hector had worked his way through the system relatively quickly for an 18-year old. He skipped A- and worked all the way up to AAA as a 21-year old, grabbing 11 starts of 4.00 ERA ball for Columbus in 2009. His line that year was very decent: 4.92 SO/BB with a 1.291 WHIP. If that was the whole story, Rondon would very likely be a starter for the Indians by now; unfortunately, that’s where Rondon’s injuries start. He had TJS in 2010, and then fractured the same elbow after recovering in 2011. Rondon hasn’t really pitched in the minors since, only getting 7 innings of work at the tail end of 2012. Scouts have liked what they’ve seen so far in the Venezuelan League so far, but injuries will dictate whether or not he has a future.

Pitch Selection

Rondon works in the low 90s with a fastball that occasionally touches 96. He has a decent changeup as well, as well as a poor slider that won’t play in the majors at this point. The lack of a breaking pitch pretty much forces him into a bullpen role, which is where he’ll play for the Cubs

Stuff

Rondon has consistenly shown very good control in the minor leagues, carrying a 1.9 BB/9 with an 8.1 K/9. The fastball can get hitters to swing and miss, and he can put the ball (generally) where he wants to. He could thrive in a true fireman role eventually but will probably see mopup/MR duties for the Cubs in 2012.

Summary

The way the Rule V draft works, the Cubs will need to keep Rondon either on the Major League roster or on the DL (only for a certain amount of time) for the whole season. His injuries will dictate whether that’s possible. If it is, the chance that Rondon sticks is very high. The Cubs could use a power pen arm that has legitimate #3 upside (if he develops a slider), and if the cost if essentially free, Theo & Co won’t pass that up.

How much value does Alfonso Soriano have?

News broke yesterday that the Cubs talked about swapping Alfonso Soriano for Domonic Brown. At first blush, it seems like a steal for the Cubs. After digging into the numbers, now I’m not so sure…

First, I’d like to try to determine Fonzie’s worth. He had an OPS+ of 121 last year, following years of 114 and 104. Soriano only plays around 140 games a year at this point, but he’s been more durable than people might imagine. His last season wasn’t really fluky at all: his BABIP was exactly his career average, his LD% and HR/FB both at normal levels. It seems as safe as it can be for a player going into his age-37 year that he will be a solid producer. He even plays a passable LF (though BRef hates his defense)!

Fangraphs had Soriano as a 4 WAR player last year, only 1.4 the year before that, and 3.2 the year before that one. I’d say Soriano is a good bet to provide 2.5 WAR next year, and 2 WAR the year aftewards.

If you assume a win on the open market is around $4.5 million dollars, then it stands to reason that a player with 2.5/2 in the toolkit should get right at 2/$20. The Cubs, of course, are paying more than that, but would gladly eat enough of the contract to get that number to 2/$10 for a prospective trade partner.

So, we’ve established that trading Soriano (and leaving the other team to pick up 2/10) provides the Cubs with about $10 million dollars of surplus value. What sort of prospect could that buy?

If we use this handy guide, we could get a B grade pitcher (by Sickels), or around a 75-100 pitching prospect in baseball (so think the bottom of the Top 200) list. For the Cubs, think a Dillon Maples or Pierce Johnson type (who are B-).

That’s a greater return than I would have thought, at first; then I sort of realized how good of a player Soriano has really been. If you strip away his contract, he’s been a very productive player (if overpaid). Similar talents on the market (Victorino, Hunter) have gotten bigger deals. Why shouldn’t 2 years and 10 million for Soriano be worth a Pierce Johnson type?

If Soriano is worth a prospect in the global 150-200 range, that’s about the 5-7 range for an average individual team. Domonic Brown would have been way more than that in 2011 (when he was the #4 prospect in baseball). However, Brown is injury-prone (he hurt his left knee again this year). He spent another unproductive third of a season at the major league level, and did not really dominate in AAA last year (although the IL is the pitcher’s league). Brown plays a above-average defense in right, but is a hair below average in centerfield (where he’d presumably play for the Cubs).

All in all, I’d wager Brown is a prospect in the 75-100 range next year, if not a shade lower. That is slightly more expensive than Soriano is worth; however, you’re paying for the upside that Soriano could provide (a 3.5 or 4.0 WAR season is easily in his capabilities), and getting a player that fits into the Phillies’ tight budget. I’d say a Soriano for Brown swap works for both sides, and if we have to throw in a C-level prospect or two to make that happen, I’m very fine with that too.

Better Know a Cub: Anthony Rizzo

Anthony Rizzo has packed a lot of bags. Drafted in the 6th round out of Stoneman-Douglas HS, Rizzo has been a part of 3 different organizations in 6 years, being traded in both 2011 and 2012. He was an early riser, spending only 24 PA in Rookie Ball and only a season or so in A and A+ combined. His plate discipline and power stroke were enough to have him named the #75 prospect in 2011 and #47 in 2012.

His 2011 Major League debut was nothing short of terrible. His line was .141/.281/.242, good for an OPS+ of 51. He struck out at a 30.1% clip, and only hit 16% line drives. He had 153 terrible plate appearances and there was a very real worry he’d never put it together.

The Cubs dealt a promising power arm in Andrew Cashner for him, seeing as Jed Hoyer and Anthony Rizzo are probably in the same ka-tet, and Rizzo spent the first part of 2012 in AAA. After his call-up, things went a lot better for him: .285/.342/.463, with 15 HR in 368 PA. Which Rizzo can we expect going forward?

Offense

Rizzo features left-handed power and patience from at 1B. Last year, he had an OPS+ of 119, which is right around average for 3s. Most of his value is derived from his ability to both walk and get extra-base hits, though his 7.3% walk rate last year was lower than the league average of 8.1%. His BABIP last year was .310; that’s completely sustainable and the strongest reason to believe that his 2011 year was just fluky (his BABIP that year was a miserable .210).

Rizzo cannot hit lefties to save his life, with an OBP of .243; however, his first home run as a Cub was against a lefty (I was there :), one of my top-3 favorite games I’ve attended). Ideally, you’d sit him against lefties around half the time (there’s no need for a full platoon), and give Rizzo those days off. I think 135-140 games would be the ideal.

He’s also much better in day games than night games. That’s pretty cool, obviously; that’s very atypical and good for the Cubs. It’s also counter-intuitive to his home/away splits, which actually show him favoring road games.

I think Rizzo’s greatest chance to grow is by (surprise!) seeing more pitches. He saw 3.92 in 2011; just 3.64 last year. Some of that can be attributed to the absolute lack of protection he has, but he was batting 8th last year so you know he was getting attacked.

Oddly enough, his OPS after 2-1 counts is his lowest for any count (though it only occured 17 times). He’d much rather be looking at a 1-2 or even 0-2 count!

Defense

Rizzo was hailed as a defensive stalwart at first. He didn’t disappoint; he was a very good defensive first baseman, though he did make a few mistakes (to be expected from a 22-year-old). He’s got really nice footwork and is good at scooping (though he’s no Derrek Lee). He’s going to need to be agile, with Castro throwing his way!

Summary

I was very scared that Rizzo had a good chance of crashing and burning. 2011 was really, really ugly (significantly worse than Brett Jackson’s first ~150 PA). He came in this year and crushed, but then pitchers adapted to him. Many players never find a way to re-adjust, but give Rizzo all the credit in the world because he did. He doesn’t have the highest ceiling in the system, but he’s got potential to hit .310/.380/.530 for a good, long time. I think that would be a very successful career.