Over the last two seasons Koyie Hill has posted a 51 wRC+ (weighted runs created, adjusted so that 100 is average like ERA+ and OPS+). wRC+, you may remember, uses wOBA. Oddly enough, it’s only 11th worst over those two seasons among players with 200 or more PA. It’s bad. It’s downright terrible, but he is a catcher so he’s actually been a replacement level player during this time.
The thing that stuck out at me as I was looking at this was how many PA he has during this stretch (515). Among the 17 worst, only Dioner Navarro has more PA than Hill (552). Of the 35 worst, only Cesar Izturis, Josh Wilson and Dioner Navarro have had more PA than Hill. The average PA of the top 20 is 354. Hill has stepped to the plate 161 times more than the average number of times these terrible hitters. That’s spread out over two seasons, but that production at the plate isn’t even that much better than a pitcher. The Cubs have basically had two pitchers in ther lineup for at least parts of 160 games.
I knew that Hill was going to make the roster. You don’t offer him the arbitration contract the Cubs did if you don’t have every intention of using him as the back-up. Plus, he played so horribly this spring and I don’t remember a single comment from Hendry, Quade or any of the coaches about his job being in jeopardy. It never was.
The question has to be asked though. Why is on the roster? To be fair to Hill for a moment, he’s basically a replacement level player. Perhaps a bit worse. I think his awfulness is overstated, but as long as you have one better option than Hill, there’s no reason not to use that option. The Cubs have at least one. Welington Castillo is easily the better player. Chris Robinson is probably better. Steve Clevenger might be as well.
To be fair to Hill yet again, it’s not like he’s making much money. He’s making a little more than league minimum, which is what all the others would make. Clevenger and Robinson are probably replacement level players unless their defense is well above average. It’s even possible that all Castillo is is a replacement level catcher. I’d actually lean toward that being true.
Castillo’s average projection is a .306 wOBA so yeah, he’s about replacement level and that depends on the defense. He’s probably a little better than replacement level, but not all that much. The improvement isn’t significant and neither is the money. The Cubs can tell us that and they’d be 100% right. What the Cubs can’t tell us is that Koyie Hill is their best option. That’s not true. They don’t have a great option either way.
As good a hitter as Geovany Soto is, Cubs fans should be expecting the position overall to be a little better than mediocre. That’s because Koyie Hill is such a terrible hitter and it’s unlikely he’ll be replaced. Even if he is, whoever is back there probably isn’t all that much better.
Take 2010 as an example for how much a terrible hitter can affect the overall performance from a single position. Geovany Soto‘s .385 wOBA a year ago led all MLB catchers with 300 or more PA. By more than 10 points. The Cubs as a team had a .335 wOBA from their catchers, which was actually 7th best, but the wRC+ was exactly league average (100).
We’re all talking about how Soto is the team’s best hitter, and he is, but what’s been left out is that the team’s production as a whole from that position isn’t going to stand out. The same can also be said for the Cubs next best hitter, Carlos Pena. Who is going to back him up? Tyler Colvin? I’m much more optimistic about him than a lot of people are and I think he’ll be about league average. I know some have suggested he’ll hit below replacement level and that’s certainly possible.
Back-ups play. At some positions they’re going to play a lot for one reason or another. At other positions the starter will stay relatively healthy. Behind the plate you know Koyie Hill is getting 150 or more plate appearances at the very least. It’s really too bad the Cubs have such an awful hitting back-up because it takes what should be a position of strength for the team and just makes slightly better than average. That’s difficult to do, but that’s how bad a hitter Koyie Hill is.
The sad thing is that the other options probably aren’t a lot better. Here’s to hoping that Geovany Soto gets moved up in the order, stays healthy, performs well, and plays in about 140 games. That’s a lot ot ask for any catcher.
I’ve been saying for awhile that it’s going to be difficult for this team to be above average on offense. Part of that is that the Cubs have had only one season where they were average or above on offense since the end of the WWII. The offense has shown remarkable consistency over the last 65+ years. That year the Cubs offense was average or above? 2008. They had a 103 wRC+ that season. Below is a rather revealing image of just how not good the Cubs offense has been for a very long time.
As you can clearly see, the Cubs offense hasn’t been consistently good since the 1930s. Even then it’s hard to say it was consistently good. People have often explained the Cubs failures because of their pitching at Wrigley Field, but it’s the exacty opposite. That’s where the 2011 season is made even more difficult.
Not only do the Cubs have a well below average back-up catcher that brings down the overall average of the position, their current back-up at 2nd base is Darwin Barney. As much fun as it is to root for someone like Barney, his best skill is his defense. As a batter, he’s projected to have a wOBA of just .293. It’s going to be impossible for Jeff Baker to provide enough offense at 2nd base to make up for the offensive liability that Darwin Barney likely is. Barney is also the back-up at SS. You’ve got a combination of Blake DeWitt, possible Jeff Baker and maybe even Darwin Barney backing up Ramirez.
The Cubs offense could be decent next season, but it’s going to require that nearly every starter play up to his potential or above and that he stays healthy for the majority of the season. If that can happen the Cubs are probably looking at running out a slightly below average offense, but not that bad. A few injuries here or there and the Cubs are going to struggle a lot to score runs in 2011.
As bad as the offense may be, the pitching is quite good. Good enough to carry the team? Probably not, but stranger things have surely happened.
Comments
In sum: The bad thing about Koyie Hill is not that he is bad; it’s that he gets so many opportunities to be bad.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
I actually think Aramis Ramirez is the team’s best hitter. Soto has power and patience, but I think a disproportionate amount of his value comes from his ability to get on base. When Aramis is right, he can do it all on offense. I guess maybe you’re saying Aramis is no longer right, and never again will be? I don’t know, let’s see what happens in the first couple months of this season.
AJ WalshQuote Reply
[quote name=AJ Walsh]I actually think Aramis Ramirez is the team’s best hitter. Soto has power and patience, but I think a disproportionate amount of his value comes from his ability to get on base. When Aramis is right, he can do it all on offense. I guess maybe you’re saying Aramis is no longer right, and never again will be? I don’t know, let’s see what happens in the first couple months of this season.[/quote]So many parts of Aramis are broken, I don’t know what to expect from him anymore. I agree that when right, he’s prob the best offensive player on the team, but it seems like he’s seldom right anymore.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
This claim strikes me as odd. Care to elucidate?
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=AJ Walsh]I actually think Aramis Ramirez is the team’s best hitter. Soto has power and patience, but I think a disproportionate amount of his value comes from his ability to get on base. When Aramis is right, he can do it all on offense. I guess maybe you’re saying Aramis is no longer right, and never again will be? I don’t know, let’s see what happens in the first couple months of this season.[/quote]Entering last season Ramirez was the team’s best hitter and if he can somehow return to the levels he was at prior to 2010 he probably is. I think he’ll rebound in 2011, but he’s getting older and more fragile. I doubt he returns to the level we’ve seen from him as a Cub.
I think Soto and Pena are the best hitters. Could go either with those guys. Ramirez is next, but a good 10 points or more of wOBA behind those two in terms of projections.
I think Ramirez will be productive at the plate though. I just don’t think he’s going to be what it once was.
mb21Quote Reply
For what it’s worth, all player’s value is weighted more heavily toward their ability to get on base. The out is the costliest event in baseball. Also, only Tyler Colvin and Alfonso Soriano posted a higher Isolated Power than Soto did last year. He hits for power and gets on base.
mb21Quote Reply
Glad to have something like this back: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/out_of_the_ashes_of_jeffs_minor_league_splits_site_comes/
mb21Quote Reply
Soto’s a great hitter but I wonder if moving him out of the lineup would put a dent in some of his numbers, especially OBP.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Brett Jackson has hit lefties about as well as righties, but doesn’t get on base as much. Good to see he can hit them: http://mlsplits.drivelinebaseball.com/mlsplits/playerinfo/571804
mb21Quote Reply
You mean if he was playing more, b?
mb21Quote Reply
Looking at the park and league adjusted MLE for Jackson kind of makes you lower your expectations of him.
mb21Quote Reply
.760 park and league adjusted MLE for Jackson in his career. I’m not totally convinced that MLE’s are all that good, but that’s got to be a bit concerning.
mb21Quote Reply
b, I got the Reds interview back from Justin. Don’t have the other two though and I’m not going to bother the guy from WHYGAVS. I’ll send a quick email to Sommer later today though.
mb21Quote Reply
Post and run here. I saw this chart and thought the folks here would appreciate it.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21].760 park and league adjusted MLE for Jackson in his career. I’m not totally convinced that MLE’s are all that good, but that’s got to be a bit concerning.[/quote]
Maybe that’s why they’re moving him to LF.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]You mean if he was playing more, b?[/quote]
I meant to say “out of the bottom of the lineup” but that could apply too.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=shawndgoldman]Post and run here. I saw this chart and thought the folks here would appreciate it.
false.
Asshat.
BerseliusQuote Reply
The wRC v. time thing is a sad, sad chart.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]false.
Asshat.[/quote]
I refuse to debate someone who speaks in such a way.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
[quote name=shawndgoldman]Post and run here. I saw this chart and thought the folks here would appreciate it.
You probably didn’t even make that chart. And the color scheme sucks.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Shawn, you’re an ass hat.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Shawn, you’re an ass hat.[/quote]
You’re wrong. Let me present Exhibit A:
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=shawndgoldman]I refuse to debate someone who speaks in such a way.[/quote]You’re obviously saying that because you’re a chicken-fucker. Also, you could be less smarmy.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]You’re wrong. Let me present Exhibit A:[/quote]False.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
I have a sort of offense-themed question. I also had another question but I forgot it but I’ll figure it out later…
So as an NL fan I still hate the DH but I don’t like the bunt even more. I feel like it’s a wasted out except in late game situations where you only need that one run. So if there’s a man on second and the pitcher invariably tries to bunt him over, that obviously gets the man to third most of the time but it’s a wasted out and run expectancy still goes down. However, is there some assumption in run expectancy that in most situations (man on, no out, two men on, one out, etc) that the man at bat is a league average hitter and not a pitcher? I was just wondering if run expectancy would change in that case because pitchers suck so bad at hitter, which is why they are pretty much forced to bunt in such situations instead of trying to get a hit. I figure something like a 20% chance of actually getting a hit (most pitchers hit around .150 to .200ish) outweighs the 10% chance of GIDP (I made that up but it’s probably about right) or even the near 100% chance that the bunter is out.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
A daris darrison.
Serene BransonQuote Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE4c_Z3b_h8
Serene BransonQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]You’re wrong. Let me present Exhibit A:[/quote]
hahahahaha… I hit refresh a couple times.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
[quote name=shawndgoldman]hahahahaha… I hit refresh a couple times.[/quote]No you didn’t.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
HATE THE SAC BUNT, RC. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE. NO ONE WILL EVER MOVE ME FROM THIS POSITION. And that goes double for one-out sac bunts. ARRRRRRRGHHHHHH. I get unreasonably mad about those.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
HAHAHAHAHAHA, JG has won the thread.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]HATE THE SAC BUNT, RC. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE. NO ONE WILL EVER MOVE ME FROM THIS POSITION. And that goes double for one-out sac bunts. ARRRRRRRGHHHHHH. I get unreasonably mad about those.[/quote]
This was brought up in one of the more recent practice games Cashner pitched in. He had an 0-2 count with runners on the corners with no out. Now I understood that he was trying to learn how to get the bunt down right, but with no outs, and a well placed grounder, the man on third scores easily despite the fact that the grounder could result in a double play. Cashner struck out bunting foul, which is automatically a dead ball so no advance. I just feel that on 0-2 counts, the bunt should be put back on the shelf and the guy should just swing away. But I was just trying to see if someone could answer my question above to ascertain if there was a quantitative rationale for why you don’t bunt in those situations, even if it is a pitcher at-bat.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0
66.4 million views now.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]This was brought up in one of the more recent practice games Cashner pitched in. He had an 0-2 count with runners on the corners with no out. Now I understood that he was trying to learn how to get the bunt down right, but with no outs, and a well placed grounder, the man on third scores easily despite the fact that the grounder could result in a double play. Cashner struck out bunting foul, which is automatically a dead ball so no advance. I just feel that on 0-2 counts, the bunt should be put back on the shelf and the guy should just swing away. But I was just trying to see if someone could answer my question above to ascertain if there was a quantitative rationale for why you don’t bunt in those situations, even if it is a pitcher at-bat.[/quote]MB has repeatedly remidned me that I’m not really on the side of the numbers, but I’m willing to have a little irrational hatred in my life. I really hate sac bunts. And I mean hate. I even hate when the other team does it. I’d have my pitchers throw straight at their face whenever they squared around early. Like Earl Weaver is supposed to have said, God gave you 27 outs for a reason, and that was not to waste any of them.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]MB has repeatedly remidned me that I’m not really on the side of the numbers, but I’m willing to have a little irrational hatred in my life. I really hate sac bunts. And I mean hate. I even hate when the other team does it. I’d have my pitchers throw straight at their face whenever they squared around early. Like Earl Weaver said, God gave you 27 outs for a reason, and that was not to waste any of them.[/quote]
I like surprise attempts to bunt for a hit, irrational though they may be.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban Kid]I like surprise attempts to bunt for a hit, irrational though they may be.[/quote]
Those make me happy because the batter can somewhat control where the bunt goes to take advantage of the defense playing back. In that case, it’s a very smart play to me, even if it fails.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban Kid]I like surprise attempts to bunt for a hit, irrational though they may be.[/quote][quote name=Rice Cube]Those make me happy because the batter can somewhat control where the bunt goes to take advantage of the defense playing back. In that case, it’s a very smart play to me, even if it fails.[/quote]Yeah, I don’t always mind those, except when it’s Neifi FUCKING PEREZ IN THE BOTTOM OF THE NINTH WITH TWO OUTS URGE TO KILL RISING……..
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
But I agree with you guys on the sac bunt, when the batter squares around about 45 minutes before the pitch is thrown and the entire infield is so close they can see the beard crumbs in the hitter’s goatee.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
Desipio took a page from AC’s countdown list…
http://www.desipio.com/?p=3512
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I wasn’t going to mention that example, MO (dying laughing)
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Damn you guys. I got things to do.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
For your banner.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
Who’s Ricketts peeing on? Is Al reporting this on the channel 6 news?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Al, for one, welcomes our new aggressively pro-trough overlords.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Or is that a thought bubble and this is Al’s fantasy?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Al, for one, welcomes our new aggressively pro-trough overlords.[/quote]
Winner.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Phil Rogers on Matt Szczur (or at least reporting what he heard, so this may be taken as decent news…)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I have a sort of offense-themed question. I also had another question but I forgot it but I’ll figure it out later…
So as an NL fan I still hate the DH but I don’t like the bunt even more. I feel like it’s a wasted out except in late game situations where you only need that one run. So if there’s a man on second and the pitcher invariably tries to bunt him over, that obviously gets the man to third most of the time but it’s a wasted out and run expectancy still goes down. However, is there some assumption in run expectancy that in most situations (man on, no out, two men on, one out, etc) that the man at bat is a league average hitter and not a pitcher? I was just wondering if run expectancy would change in that case because pitchers suck so bad at hitter, which is why they are pretty much forced to bunt in such situations instead of trying to get a hit. I figure something like a 20% chance of actually getting a hit (most pitchers hit around .150 to .200ish) outweighs the 10% chance of GIDP (I made that up but it’s probably about right) or even the near 100% chance that the bunter is out.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Tango noted that there is a cutoff where the hitter is so bad that you can bunt him, but I might be thinking of a different scenario and I forget what that wOBA cutoff is.
I’m generally with MO, I usually hate the sacrifice bunt. However, there are scenarios that, while your run expectancy decreases, your chance of scoring one run does, so it might be optimal in 9th inning – one run scenarios.
Been a while since I read through it though, so i might be wrong.
MishQuote Reply
Um, Tim Tebow kind of sucks. Like, a lot.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Um, Tim Tebow kind of sucks. Like, a lot.[/quote]
Yeah…I didn’t think that was the best analogy either.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Yeah…I didn’t think that was the best analogy either.[/quote]It’s like saying Carlos Pena is the Eddie Curry of first basemen.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Manni Stats]I’m pretty sure Tango noted that there is a cutoff where the hitter is so bad that you can bunt him, but I might be thinking of a different scenario and I forget what that wOBA cutoff is.
I’m generally with MO, I usually hate the sacrifice bunt. However, there are scenarios that, while your run expectancy decreases, your chance of scoring one run does, so it might be optimal in 9th inning – one run scenarios.
Been a while since I read through it though, so i might be wrong.[/quote]
Thanks man. I was just wondering, really, what that cutoff is.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Tried to find the Ricketts trough gif. Was unsuccessful.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Um, Tim Tebow kind of sucks. Like, a lot.[/quote]
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Thanks man. I was just wondering, really, what that cutoff is.[/quote]
From what I remember, MGL has a tediously long chapter on bunting and game theory in The Book that talks about when to sacrifice.
BerseliusQuote Reply
(dying laughing), b, I was just about to post that. (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]It’s like saying Carlos Pena is the Eddie Curry of first basemen.[/quote]
Alvin Yellon is the Andy Dick of Cubs bloggers.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]Alvin Yellon is the Andy Dick of Cubs bloggers.[/quote]Well, that’s actually apt.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]From what I remember, MGL has a tediously long chapter on bunting and game theory in The Book that talks about when to sacrifice.[/quote]
This book?
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Playing-Percentages-Baseball/dp/1597971294/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1301508222&sr=8-5
Rice CubeQuote Reply
New post http://obstructedview.net/articles/general/nl-central-preview-cincinnati-reds.html
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=shawndgoldman]Post and run here. [/quote]False.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Yeah, I don’t always mind those, except when it’s Neifi FUCKING PEREZ IN THE BOTTOM OF THE NINTH WITH TWO OUTS URGE TO KILL RISING……..[/quote]
I remember arguing about this with a friend of mine the next day. I still can’t believe he argued that was a good bunt. So maddening. I counter argued and called him an Assahat.
DustyBottomsQuote Reply
I believe 100 wRC+ is only the average for non-pitchers. The average for a non-DH team, is therefore lower than 100. Checking of Fangraphs confirms that the vast majority of NL teams have a wRC+ less than 100 every year, but not the AL.
Aaron T.Quote Reply