I had thought about doing this again this year, but held off for some reason. After listening to Wrigley Talk Friday this morning I thought I’d finally do it. WTF talks about Carlos Zambrano for awhile to begin the podcast and like Julie, Tim and Adam, I’m as confused as they are. I really do not know why Carlos Zambrano is held to a standard that no other Cubs player in memory has been or likely will be.
On Another Cubs Blog we wrote it about it frequently and finally realized that the hardest W for him to ever come by is going to be with the fans and media. In fact, he simply cannot win with the fans and media. It’s not going to happen.
Some of this was talked about on the podcast, but I’ll go over it briefly. Fans want players to run out every ground ball. Think about how many times you’ve heard announcers, journalists and fans criticize a player for not running out a ground ball. Zambrano runs them out as hard as he can and people complain. Fans want their players to love the city they play for. Zambrano loves the United States enough that he got his citizenship here and he loves Chicago. He absolutely loves the city, the fans, the atmosphere around the city. Everything. Fans ignore it. Fans want their players to be human beings and divulge some personal information. Zambrano does it all the time and fans tell him he needs to shut up. Fans want players to be good husbands and fathers. Zambrano, from everything we’ve ever read is. Fans criticize him for playing catch with his children in the park. Fans want players who care about winning. I’ve watched few players in my life who cared about winning as much as Zambrano does. Fans complain. Fans want players to show some emotion because if they don’t, they’re lazy. Zambrano shows as much emotion as we’ve seen and fans think it’s a problem. Zambrano saved an infant from a burning apartment firefighters were too frightened to enter. Fans complained. The last one didn’t happen of course, but if it ever did, the fans would complain. It doesn’t matter what he does. Everything is wrong. Nothing is good enough. That’s where these articles have come from.
The first article has a rundown of where Zambrano ranked among all starting pitchers and among all Cubs starting pitchers midway through the 2009 season. Last February I took another look at it and I’ll now take a look at it again through the early part of the 2011 season.
The goal was to look at stats that the average person accepts and uses regularly. Advanced metrics are fantastic and far better, but you’re not going to convince the average man by throwing weird acronyms at him. We will look at advanced metrics, but we’re going to start with much simpler ones.
Wins is a pitching statistic that is mostly useless, but fans love them some wins. I used a cutoff of 1950 since pitchers prior to that finished many of the games they started. That was true in the 50s, 60s and even 70s, but I didn’t want to break it down into just 20 or 25 years. Zambrano has won 118 games in his career between the ages of 20 and 30. Among 20-30 year olds since 1950 only 65 pitchers have won more games than Zambrano over those years. Many of those pitchers were from the 50s and 60s. Since 1980 only 22 have won more games than Zambrano between those ages.
Not only has Z won a lot of games, he hasn’t lost that many. His career winning percentage is .615. Since 1901 only 54 starting pitchers with 1000 or more innings pitched in their careers have a higher winning percentage than Zambrano. That’s nearly the entire history of the game.
Wins among starting pitchers for the Cubs since 1980 (ages 20-30) has Z at the top (23 more wins than Maddux). That 46 more wins than the pitcher in 3rd (Kerry Wood), 58 more than Steve Trachsel (4th), and 71 more than Frank Castillo who sits 5th. There’s not even a Cubs pitcher who is even close to Zambrano in wins from the same age that Zambrano has been since 1980. Since 1950, Fergie is at the top by a wide margin, but Zambrano is 2nd. Since 1901, only Fergie Jenkins and Ed Reulback have more wins for the Cubs than Zambrano does (age 20-30 seasons). Since 1876, Zambrano ranks 16th in wins for the Cubs and his career isn’t over. As much as fans say they like wins, it’s hard to argue with someone who has put together more wins for the Cubs than all but 15 pitchers in its entire history.
Z’s .615 career winning percentage ranks 9th on the Cubs all time among starting pitchers. The latest year one in front of him began his career was 1906. Nobody that began their career after 1906 has a higher career winning percentage (among starters of course) than Carlos freaking Zambrano.
Fans like wins. Fans still complain about Zambrano even though they’ve not seen anybody with a higher winning percentage for the Cubs.
ERA is still a stat many fans like. ERA is relatively useless when trying to compare one era to another, but ERA+ can do that. Since 1950 Carlos Zambrano‘s 126 ERA+ ranks 18th among pitchers who started at least 60% of their appearances and threw 1000 or more innings in their career (equivalent of about 5 full seasons these days). 18th! He trails Kevin Brown, Matt Cain and Tim Hudson by 1. He’s tied with Bret Saberhagen, Sal Magile, and Jim Palmer. He’s 1 ahead of John Smoltz and John Tudor and 2 ahead of CC Sabathia.
Since 1901 (same parameters as above), he ranks 37th. ERA isn’t a great stat at all to evaluate pitching, but the fans love it. Only 36 pitchers since 1901 have a higher ERA+. He ranks 43rd if we go all the way back to 1876. Think about that a moment. Have you ever done anything in your life that ranks as the 43rd highest in over 130 years? Me neither. It is important to note that Zambrano’s career is not over and players get worse as they age so his numbers are likely to go down, but so far that’s where he ranks all-time.
Among Cubs pitchers (60% starts, 1000 or more innings) in the the entire history of the organization, only the following players have a higher ERA+ than Z’s 126: Mordecai Brown (153), John Clarkson (151), Jack Pfiester (139), Orval Overall (135), Lon Warneke (131), Pete Alexander (131), Cark Griffith (129) and Larry Corcoran (128). Only one of them started their career after 1906. That was Lon Warneke who began his career in 1930. Think about that one for a moment. No player who began his career with the Cubs in 80 years has a better ERA+ than Carlos freaking Zambrano!
Fans like ERA. They still complain about Zambrano.
People say Z is too inconsistent. Game Score is a relatively simple formula that has been around for awhile thanks to Bill James. It measures how well one does in each start by assigning a singular number to it. Z’s average game score in his career is 55. Since 1950, that’s tied for 63rd with Dan Haren, Tim Hudson, CC Sabathia, Justin Verlander, Mike Mussina, Dwight Gooden, Dave Steib, Phil Neikro and several others. Game score only goes back to 1919, but Zambrano sits in the same spot if we go back that far. Among Cubs starting pitchers with 1000 or more innings, only Fergie Jenkins and Kerry Wood have a better average game score. That’s it.
Similar to the above, we can use quality start percentage (QS%) to also see how consistent a pitcher was. It’s far from perfect, but no stat is (especially the traditional ones). Since 1950 he’s 54th. He ranks right behind Nolan Ryan and ahead of John Smoltz. He ranks 51st if we go back to 1919 (as far back as they have the stat). Only 50 pitchers have had a higher percentage of their starts be quality starts. Among Cubs players since 1919, only Bill Hands (.634), Fergie Jenkins (.628) and Kerry Wood (.624) have a higher QS% than Zambrano.
Moving on to some of the advanced metrics. Since 1950 (60% starts, 1000 innings), Z’s 31.1 WAR ranks 37th among for players through the age of 29 (Zambrano turns 30 later this season). Only 36 starting pitchers since 1950 have been better than Zambrano through the age 29 season. Since 1901 he ranks 53rd and in the entire history of baseball only 79 were more valuable than Zambrano. Since 1950, only Fergie Jenkins and Rick Reuschel were more valuable Cubs pitchers (same parameters) than Zambrano. He’s also 3rd most valuable since 1901 and since 1876 he’s 5th (John Clarkson 2nd, Clark Griffith 4th).
Among all pitchers since 1950 (60% starts, 1000 or more innings), Z’s 31.1 WAR ranks 99th. WAR is a counting stat so it will continue to rise. Since 1901 he ranks 164th and 197th in the entire history of the game. Think about that one for a moment too. In the entire history of baseball, more than 130 years, not even 200 have been better than Carlos Zambrano. So far. There are hundreds of pitchers each and every season.
Since 1950, no age limit, only 4 Cubs starting pitchers have been more valuable than Zambrano. Only 7 have been since 1901 and he ranks 11th since 1876. Bill Hutchinson, Clark Griffitch and John Clarkson all pitches in the 1880s when baseball was such a different game than it is today. They’re just ahead of Zambrano. How many people who attended a Cubs game this season saw those guys pitch? How many of them saw Mordecai Brown, Pete Alexander or Hippo Vaughn pitch? For that matter, how many of them even saw Bob Rush, Fergie Jenkins or Rick Reuschel pitch? There are only 3 pitchers on the list above Zambrano that I saw: Jenkins, Reuschel and Maddux. I was -2 years old when Reuschel began his Cubs career and -6 when Jenkins did. Each had long enough careers that I remember watching them when I was a child. Maddux is still my favorite player ever and I remember not only his Cubs days well, but also his days in a Braves uniform. It would be silly to sit here and say Zambrano is as good as Maddux, because it’s not even close, but in a Cubs uniform he wasn’t much less valuable.
Everything above is where Zambrano ranks in various eras and various statistics. I didn’t cherry pick any of them. I looked for some stats that I know the average fan still loves. I looked for stats that fans have specifically criticized Zambrano for.
Comments
So Alvin wants to call Darwin Barney and Starlin Castro the Purple Revolutionist?
If I didn’t have a few things going right in my life, that might make me kill myself.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Still reading, but this had me (dying laughing).
AndCountingQuote Reply
Excellent work, mb.
AndCountingQuote Reply
I completely agree with this post; plus, he’s a head case, and I’m a head case, so head case solidarity! I have a Zambrano jersey. I’d try to get a Mordecai Brown jersey but they didn’t have names or numbers on the jerseys back then so it’d be kinda hard to distinguish.
PsyMarQuote Reply
It’s amazing how these people take the anti-Z blather from Former Playgirl Model Steve Stone, the Man-O-Lantern, and Johnny Cakes to be indubitable in the face of numbers like these.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=PsyMar]I completely agree with this post; plus, he’s a head case, and I’m a head case, so head case solidarity! I have a Zambrano jersey. I’d try to get a Mordecai Brown jersey but they didn’t have names or numbers on the jerseys back then so it’d be kinda hard to distinguish.[/quote]You could always have Koyie Hill show you how to use a table saw. Just tell him you want the two-finger lesson instead of the full four.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Yeah, but he didn’t go back in for the player piano.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Excellent work, mb.[/quote]Thanks. There’s a time each year where I start to wonder if I’m wildly overrating what Zambrano has done in his career. You start to think that not all of them can be so wrong. It would be easier for me to be wrong than it is for all of them. So I do this and am always amazed at not really how dumb some people are, but more amazed at just how damn valuable Zambrano has been to this organization.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]Yeah, but he didn’t go back in for the player piano.[/quote]He should burn in hell for that.
mb21Quote Reply
This post demands a fuck yeah picture.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I wonder if you got 5 people who hate Carlos Zambrano to read this how many times you’d hear “yeah, butt.”
He’s the 43rd best, but he could be 29th best because I have an eye for these things.
Wasn’t it Yellon who said something like “I do a little scouting”?
mb21Quote Reply
When does McNutt come off the DL?
mb21Quote Reply
Bubbles has been awarded Dinner for his performance last week in Discredited Fantasy Baseball.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]Bubbles has been awarded Dinner for his performance last week in Discredited Fantasy Baseball.[/quote]
Hah I forgot all about this league. Funny what no financial incentive will do. (dying laughing)
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]When does McNutt come off the DL?[/quote]
Monday.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]This post demands a fuck yeah picture.[/quote]
I’m disappointed it’s not the goggles pic, or Z ejecting the umpire but I’ll take it (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
I have no problem with Z. He has been a very good pitcher throughout his career. He was my favorite player for a long time and I own a Zambrano jersey.
The only issue I have is that at this point he is just an above average pitcher and he is being paid $18 million.
Hector VillanuevaQuote Reply
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]
The only issue I have is that at this point he is just an above average pitcher and he is being paid $18 million.[/quote]
This is pretty much it. But I don’t think that Carlos Zambrano has much to do with that. If you want to pin that issue on anyone it should be Jim Hendry, but even then I don’t blame him that much. When Z signed his current deal he was in the prime of his career and one of the top pitchers in the majors, and other teams were prepared to throw even more money at him.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]This is pretty much it. But I don’t think that Carlos Zambrano has much to do with that. If you want to pin that issue on anyone it should be Jim Hendry, but even then I don’t blame him that much. When Z signed his current deal he was in the prime of his career and one of the top pitchers in the majors, and other teams were prepared to throw even more money at him.[/quote]
Agree. I don’t blame players for being overpaid. I have never understood why fans boo players that they think are overpaid. It really isn’t their fault in the least bit.
Z probably would have gotten at least that on the open market. If Hendry had let him go, Cubs fans (myself included) would have rioted.
Although, in retrospect I’m not sure that he should have been signed. Looking at his FIP and peripherals it appears as if he was already starting to decline when he signed the deal in 2007. It seems as if he was paid based on the idea that he hadn’t reached his potential yet, while he had actually probably peaked as a player.
Hector VillanuevaQuote Reply
Keep in mind when he was signed (2007). Tribco had a definite plan for what it wanted to do with the team, and it almost paid off in 07/08. Who knows how much they had to do with it.
BerseliusQuote Reply
That is a good fuck yeah pic. Z is like “Yeah I know I’m awesome.” It’s nice to know that there are at least six fans I can count in that photo who agree.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/18/your-monday-morning-power-rankings-2/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/joe_lemire/04/14/rockies.tulowitzki/index.html#
Now if he’ll just miss down in the zone and his luck equalizes a bit (I think the liners go way down if he keeps the ball down) then this would be really promising.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]Agree. I don’t blame players for being overpaid. I have never understood why fans boo players that they think are overpaid. It really isn’t their fault in the least bit.
Z probably would have gotten at least that on the open market. If Hendry had let him go, Cubs fans (myself included) would have rioted.
Although, in retrospect I’m not sure that he should have been signed. Looking at his FIP and peripherals it appears as if he was already starting to decline when he signed the deal in 2007. It seems as if he was paid based on the idea that he hadn’t reached his potential yet, while he had actually probably peaked as a player.[/quote]
Players don’t get paid for what they will do; they get paid for what they have done.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Players don’t get paid for what they will do; they get paid for what they have done.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s entirely true. Perhaps more so in baseball than the other major sports. But, when he was signed I think most thought that Z could make a jump up to be an elite pitcher.
Hector VillanuevaQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Players don’t get paid for what they will do; they get paid for what they have done.[/quote]
Well, indirectly. They’re an investment in future production where what they have done is a good indicator.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Hector Villanueva ]I don’t think that’s entirely true. Perhaps more so in baseball than the other major sports. But, when he was signed I think most thought that Z could make a jump up to be an elite pitcher.[/quote]But that thought only comes from the assumption that guy is paid to be great. But that’s rarely the case (Hanley Ramirez and Lloyd Braun might be exceptions here). By and large, ballplayers get paid for past performance. Z got paid because he had been very, very good. He’s just reaping the benefits of having been very good through his cost-controlled years. I think if more fans could see it this way, there would be a lot less kvetching about “overpaid” players.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Well, indirectly. They’re an investment in future production where what they have done is a good indicator.[/quote]I think that’s true to some degree, but I am increasingly of the mind that a player’s past performance, and not what he might do in the future, carries the most weight in his big money deal.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]But that thought only comes from the assumption that guy is paid to be great. But that’s rarely the case (Hanley Ramirez and Lloyd Braun might be exceptions here). By and large, ballplayers get paid for past performance. Z got paid because he had been very, very good. He’s just reaping the benefits of having been very good through his cost-controlled years. I think if more fans could see it this way, there would be a lot less kvetching about “overpaid” players.[/quote]
I think GMs try to strike a balance between past and future.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I feel like this is being corrected the last few years. I think more and more GMs are better evaluating talent moving forward. For example, I think the Jays are paying Jose Bautista a figure they think appropriate for someone who will mash 30 HRs a year, as opposed to the 54 or whatever he hit last year. I think some of the bigger market teams are still paying for past performance mostly (Yankees, Sox, Cubs, etc) but they should have more room for error in the financials.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think that’s true to some degree, but I am increasingly of the mind that a player’s past performance, and not what he might do in the future, carries the most weight in his big money deal.[/quote]
Sure, because past results are the best indicator of future performance. Nobody is going to sign a mediocre player that was a hot prospect at one time to a big-money deal based on potential to be great. That doesn’t mean guys like Sabathia, Teixeira and Crawford didn’t get big money deals because the teams that signed them expected them to perform at a high level for at least part of their contract.
Hector VillanuevaQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish] I think some of the bigger market teams are still paying for past performance mostly (Yankees, Sox, Cubs, etc) but they should have more room for error in the financials.[/quote]
Of course, this may all just be a function of who’s willing to overpay for talent and who isn’t, and those who aren’t “appear” to be doling out contracts on expected performance, not the past.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think that’s true to some degree, but I am increasingly of the mind that a player’s past performance, and not what he might do in the future, carries the most weight in his big money deal.[/quote]
I like Tim’s analogy about gambling from when I was grinding my axe about the Soriano deal. View contracts as bets.
BerseliusQuote Reply
This is cool:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Video-David-Wright-plays-catch-with-young-Brave?urn=mlb-wp3705
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I like Tim’s analogy about gambling from when I was grinding my axe about the Soriano deal. View contracts as bets.[/quote]It’s funny, because the term that always comes into the discussion when contracts like Zambrano’s get signed is “hometown discount,” and that’s what the Cubs got with Z. But I think it goes both ways. While a team could (and pragmatically should) be pretty callous about what a player has accomplished for them in the cost controlled years, I don’t mind if they wind up overpaying with an extension. Maybe the Cubs aren’t getting everything they paid for from the point of the signing on, but Zambrano deserves every penny he’ll ever get from the Cubs.
AndCountingQuote Reply
The thing with Zambrano is that he’s ALWAYS come up short of fan expectations or just not been good enough for their love. Early in his career he was in the shadow of Prior and Wood. Sometime back then Theo Epstein made a comment that he thought Z had the best stuff of the 3 and people laughed.
Zambrano has never been good enough for a vast majority of the fans. It is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Great post.
Is anyone aware if there are any statistics relating to pop-up ratio- not just infield pop-ups, but outfield as well?
ZappBranniganQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]The thing with Zambrano is that he’s ALWAYS come up short of fan expectations or just not been good enough for their love. Early in his career he was in the shadow of Prior and Wood. Sometime back then Theo Epstein made a comment that he thought Z had the best stuff of the 3 and people laughed.
Zambrano has never been good enough for a vast majority of the fans. It is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen.[/quote]More bizarre than the forest gif?
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]More bizarre than the forest gif?[/quote]
OK, second most bizarre (and disturbing).
Aisle424Quote Reply
MO can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what he’s saying is that players are paid based on their past production. It’s not so much that they aren’t paid for what they’re going to do in the future, but they are paid entirely based on what they have done in the past. That’s how I’ve always viewed contracts. We can get a relatively good idea how a large enough sample of people are going to perform, but for one player? No, we’re basing all of our assumptions on what others have done in the future who were similar to him. I agree with MO.
I think players are either paid for what they’ve done or they’re paid for what similar players have done. You can’t pay a baseball player for something he is going to do in the future. The decision at the time of the contract is made only has information based on what has happened. Not what will.
That being said, there’s an expected level of production, but for free agents that level of production is often something that can’t be met. The average fan thinks $18 million is 20 wins and that’s unreasonable considering the Cubs offense. The team expects one of the best ERA’s in the league and that’s also unreasonable because most players regress toward the league average. If you sign a guy coming off a good season you should expect him to do worse (not better).
Players are always compared to what they had done prior to signing their contract. We see the same thing with Dempster after his 2008 season. Fans were disappointed at first because he didn’t have the sparkling ERA. They thought they paid Dempster to be 2008 Ryan Dempster. That’s what the Cubs unfortunately expected even though they got a good deal for him.
Sorry for rambling, but i do believe players are paid on what they have done and not what they will do.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]The thing with Zambrano is that he’s ALWAYS come up short of fan expectations or just not been good enough for their love. Early in his career he was in the shadow of Prior and Wood. Sometime back then Theo Epstein made a comment that he thought Z had the best stuff of the 3 and people laughed.
Zambrano has never been good enough for a vast majority of the fans. It is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen.[/quote]I don’t understand it, but I’ve accepted the fact that there is literally nothing he can do to appease those fans. You look at what he has done, the type of person he is, and all of that stuff and it’s generally what the fans want. Z’s doing it wrong though. Even if these fans gave Z a blueprint for what has to be done for them to like him, they’d find something else.
In year’s past he’s pitched well, but not had the win totals they want. This year he has 2 wins in 3 starts and the games he has started have accounted for nearly half the team wins. So now they focus on how poorly he’s pitched. If he was 0-2 and the team was 0-3, but he had a 1.00 ERA, they’d complain he can’t win games. The goal posts move and there is nothing he can do to make them happy.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]MO can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what he’s saying is that players are paid based on their past production.
Sorry for rambling, but i do believe players are paid on what they have done and not what they will do.[/quote]
Except amateurs.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
We can use projections to get $WAR over a certain number of years to figure out how much a player is worth. At the end of the day though, the player is worth what the second highest bid was. 99% of the players sign for the most money so we could always so team y overpaid for so and so. The system is set up that way.
I look back at Zambrano in 2007 and see a pitcher who was expected to be worth about $100 million moving forward. I also see a guy who was in high demand just one year after Barry Zito signed that $758 billion contract. I remember the Angels were going “all in” on Zambrano and sources indicated they’d go as high as $120 million. That’s about the time the Cubs restarted negotiations with Zambrano and they signed him toward the end of the season for $96 million. At the time it was signed, it was significantly less than another team was willing to spend.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]In year’s past he’s pitched well, but not had the win totals they want. This year he has 2 wins in 3 starts and the games he has started have accounted for nearly half the team wins. So now they focus on how poorly he’s pitched. If he was 0-2 and the team was 0-3, but he had a 1.00 ERA, they’d complain he can’t win games. The goal posts move and there is nothing he can do to make them happy.[/quote]
I don’t think even Ryan Dempster is immune this season. Already lots of grumblings about the lack of quality starts and giving up shit-tons of runs so far this season. I think it’s gotten to the point where you can’t satisfy the typical Cubs fan no matter what you do or who you are.
Unless you’re Darwin Barney.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUaz5oEhUcw&feature=related
Under the recently changed NCAA rules, that play would have resulted in removing the TD and putting Texas at the OSU 17 with 6 seconds to go.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Why not call the Castro-Barney duo the Pinkosoreass?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Being Darwin Barney would be pretty sweet right now. Not only are you in the big leagues, but there’s almost nothing you can do at this point to piss the fans off. He could probably hit a popup and get down on sit down on his ass at home and there’s be some brilliant reason for it.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Being Darwin Barney would be pretty sweet right now. Not only are you in the big leagues, but there’s almost nothing you can do at this point to piss the fans off. He could probably hit a popup and get down on sit down on his ass at home and there’s be some brilliant reason for it.[/quote]
Bob has been gushing over Barney, but does it seem to anyone else that he’s been generally less critical of his favorite punching bags this year? It seems like he’s been much easier on Soriano in particular.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Bob has been gushing over Barney, but does it seem to anyone else that he’s been generally less critical of his favorite punching bags this year? It seems like he’s been much easier on Soriano in particular.[/quote]
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
ESPN does not know what “projected” means:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/30450/starlin-castro
MishQuote Reply
So I’ve been playing around trying to figure out how many runs per game are added by hustling on every infield pop-fly (after seeing Ramirez get mercilessly flamed for not standing on second after a dropped pop-up).
My result so far is that every player hustling on every infield pop-up is worth an additional 0.0026 runs per game, assuming there’s no chance of them being thrown out. I’d like to run it by you guys though since you have much more experience with this type of stuff then I do and could point out any errors.
ZappBranniganQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]ESPN does not know what “projected” means:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/30450/starlin-castro%5B/quote%5DUsing ESPN’s system, I am projected to take 6 shits today.
GBTSQuote Reply
Reply fail, but http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/4/17/2117344/mlb-reaches-deal-to-show-games-in-vietnam-china?login=1303145600#64560833
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]Bubbles has been awarded Dinner for his performance last week in Discredited Fantasy Baseball.[/quote]
Bubbles didnt play fantasy baseball
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
Didnt read the article but i agree with the premise. I read it the past years at ACB
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]When does McNutt come off the DL?[/quote]
He has a blister issue. Dont have an idea.
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]ESPN does not know what “projected” means:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/30450/starlin-castro%5B/quote%5D
I’m projected to (dying laughing) 20 times at this projection.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=ZappBrannigan]So I’ve been playing around trying to figure out how many runs per game are added by hustling on every infield pop-fly (after seeing Ramirez get mercilessly flamed for not standing on second after a dropped pop-up).
My result so far is that every player hustling on every infield pop-up is worth an additional 0.0026 runs per game, assuming there’s no chance of them being thrown out. I’d like to run it by you guys though since you have much more experience with this type of stuff then I do and could point out any errors.[/quote]We kind of discussed that here: http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/ramirezs-single.html
The estimate you have may be accurate, but there are really several things that would have to be considered first. You do have to include the chance of them being thrown out because if everyone “hustled” you’re probably looking at a player being thrown out at least as frequently as a runner is 3rd is gunned down trying to go 1st to 3rd on a single. Maybe even as high as the caught stealing percentage.
More importantly than that though, is the increased risk for injury. If everyone hustles, that’s more contact plays. More sliding means a higher risk of injury, especially for someone who is big bodied and typically avoids that stuff. There’s more chance for your hand getting stepped on, your fingers being jammed, etc. There’s a much higher risk of leg injuries.
I guess the best thing is to acknowledge players should be hustling, but also trying to get others to acknowledge that hustling doesn’t necessarily mean what they think it does. Get them to think of the times a guy was thrown out because he was hustling and made a mistake. Get them to think about the increased injury risk and so on. Hustling is great and I think all players should, but I also think we have to cut them some slack.
We don’t know the day to day bruises that someone has. We don’t know if he’s playing on a bum leg or even if we do how bad it really is.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]Reply fail, but http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/4/17/2117344/mlb-reaches-deal-to-show-games-in-vietnam-china?login=1303145600#64560833%5B/quote%5D
(dying laughing)
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]We kind of discussed that here: http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/ramirezs-single.html
The estimate you have may be accurate, but there are really several things that would have to be considered first. You do have to include the chance of them being thrown out because if everyone “hustled” you’re probably looking at a player being thrown out at least as frequently as a runner is 3rd is gunned down trying to go 1st to 3rd on a single. Maybe even as high as the caught stealing percentage.
More importantly than that though, is the increased risk for injury. If everyone hustles, that’s more contact plays. More sliding means a higher risk of injury, especially for someone who is big bodied and typically avoids that stuff. There’s more chance for your hand getting stepped on, your fingers being jammed, etc. There’s a much higher risk of leg injuries.
I guess the best thing is to acknowledge players should be hustling, but also trying to get others to acknowledge that hustling doesn’t necessarily mean what they think it does. Get them to think of the times a guy was thrown out because he was hustling and made a mistake. Get them to think about the increased injury risk and so on. Hustling is great and I think all players should, but I also think we have to cut them some slack.
We don’t know the day to day bruises that someone has. We don’t know if he’s playing on a bum leg or even if we do how bad it really is.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s what made me want to take a bit of a closer look at it. The problem I’m running into is that I can’t find date for pop-flys, just infield flys. And yeah, I considered the getting caught part but wanted to find the maximum possible benefit of hustling everytime, or the best case scenario. I didn’t consider getting injured (that’s a really good point), but if we’re considering perfect circumstances then that’s out too. Here’s what I came up with (I may have referred to things incorrectly, please let me know if I did):
Team average 38 PA per game
PA Outcome percentages:
20.7% Strikeout
70.8% Ball in play
8.5% Walk
Ball in play outcome percentages:
Infield Flyball: 6%
Infield flyball for
out percentage: 97%- over 99% (different figures)
Runs created figures:
.25 runs created for reaching first
.41 runs created for reaching second
Added benefit in reaching second: .16 runs created
Assume if player runs hard on a pop-fly that is eventually dropped- guaranteed to make it to second.
Assume if player is lazy on a pop-fly that is eventually dropped – only takes first base.
So if every player on the team runs hard every infield pop-up (will use low figure, 97% for those converted to outs), then the added benefit is 0.026 runs created per game. If one player is lazy
while all the others run hard, the loss for the team is 0.003 runs created per games, or less then half of a single run over the course of a season.
This isn’t an argument for players to not run hard- just that even in a perfect world where hustling pays off everysingle time with no risk, the added benefit is incredibly minimal. This is particularly true when we consider that players sometimes get benched for failing to hustle, generally in favor of inferior players who do hustle, but who still create less runs for the team given the minimal value of hustling.
ZappBranniganQuote Reply
[quote name=ZappBrannigan]hard on[/quote]
I laughed.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]I laughed.[/quote]
You and I don’t agree often, but, on this, we do.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]You and I don’t agree often, but, on this, we do.[/quote]
Truly, indeed, what a sad life you two must lead.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]You and I don’t agree often, but, on this, we do.[/quote]
What’s funny, in my opinion, is that, in this case, all the commas you, Mish, used, were, unlike Alvin’s cases, correct.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
(dying laughing), (dying laughing)
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=”ZappBrannigan] I’d like to run it by you guys though since you have much more experience with boner jokes then I do and could point out any errors.[/quote]
Gumb’d and Mish’d.
ZappBranniganQuote Reply
[quote name=ZappBrannigan]Gumb’d and Mish’d.[/quote]
Not enough fagets.
MishQuote Reply
new post
http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/previews/series-preview-san-diego-padres-7-8-at-chicago-cubs-7-8.html
BerseliusQuote Reply
ZB, your work there looks really good for the perfect world consideration. I can’t find any arguments except to maybe add that sometimes the “hustling” would occur with men already on base so the run expectancy would increase in those situations.
mb21Quote Reply