Abreu to Houston Rumor

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos.

[Blueheart05]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

I would not trade Williams for Lidge on this current team. The Cubs need to add starting pitching (and offense). The bullpen has a surplus of arms. Lidge isn't needed on this team however, he would be a welcomed addition on most staffs.

 

Frankly, I think the Astros are considering selling Lidge while his value is still high. If the latter part of the season/playoffs are any indication, he isn't as rock solid as one believed (especially not in big games). IIRC, the Cubs got to him twice last year including the end of the year and we all know he was less than dependable in the NLCS & WS.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos.

 

It's also about precieved value, there isn't a GM in baseball that would rather have Williams over Lidge. Besides guys like Lidge are A LOT harder to find than Williams.

 

I thought you weren't in to VORP. Aren't rate stats your thing anyway?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

I would not trade Williams for Lidge on this current team. The Cubs need to add starting pitching (and offense). The bullpen has a surplus of arms. Lidge isn't needed on this team however, he would be a welcomed addition on most staffs.

 

Frankly, I think the Astros are considering selling Lidge while his value is still high. If the latter part of the season/playoffs are any indication, he isn't as rock solid as one believed (especially not in big games). IIRC, the Cubs got to him twice last year including the end of the year and we all know he was less than dependable in the NLCS & WS.

 

I would trade for him in a second than turn around deal him for someone a heck of a lot better than Williams. This is crazy talk.

[YearofDaCubs]

Good to see there's lots of faith in JWill. Guess this team isn't so horrible afterall.

 

Hawk for JWill = another steal

That was an excellent trade for Hendry.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Good to see there's lots of faith in JWill. Guess this team isn't so horrible afterall.

 

Hawk for JWill = another steal

That was an excellent trade for Hendry.

 

No question.

[Blueheart05]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

I would not trade Williams for Lidge on this current team. The Cubs need to add starting pitching (and offense). The bullpen has a surplus of arms. Lidge isn't needed on this team however, he would be a welcomed addition on most staffs.

 

Frankly, I think the Astros are considering selling Lidge while his value is still high. If the latter part of the season/playoffs are any indication, he isn't as rock solid as one believed (especially not in big games). IIRC, the Cubs got to him twice last year including the end of the year and we all know he was less than dependable in the NLCS & WS.

 

I would trade for him in a second than turn around deal him for someone a heck of a lot better than Williams. This is crazy talk.

 

I was referring to keeping him. There's no doubt that Lidge is a great bargaining chip.

[1908]

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

Here being nsbb.com? Perhaps I've just clicked on the wrong threads, but you seem to often include a shot at the board in general when you make your points, and I see little reason for that.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos.

 

It's also about precieved value, there isn't a GM in baseball that would rather have Williams over Lidge. Besides guys like Lidge are A LOT harder to find than Williams.

 

I thought you weren't in to VORP. Aren't rate stats your thing anyway?

 

I wasn't talking about perceived value, obviously most teams would jump at the concept of trading someone like Williams for Lidge, although as Blueheart pointed out, it doesn't make sense with the current Cubs team.

 

And yes, I'm a big rate stats guy. But when you're comparing a starter to a reliever, where the differennce in playing time can be 3x as many as the other player, cumulative stats are necessary to illustrate the actual value the reliever has. A difference between 200+ innings and 70+ innings is much different than Tejada playing 160 games and Ramirez playing 140, which was the topic earlier when I preferred rate stats.

[Hosak8]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

I would not trade Williams for Lidge on this current team. The Cubs need to add starting pitching (and offense). The bullpen has a surplus of arms. Lidge isn't needed on this team however, he would be a welcomed addition on most staffs.

 

Frankly, I think the Astros are considering selling Lidge while his value is still high. If the latter part of the season/playoffs are any indication, he isn't as rock solid as one believed (especially not in big games). IIRC, the Cubs got to him twice last year including the end of the year and we all know he was less than dependable in the NLCS & WS.

 

I would deal Williams for Lidge in the blink of an eye. There are 10 free agent pitchers available who give you what Williams gives you. There are no closers available who do.

 

Ahhh.. who cares what I would do? It's all hypothetical anyway as it will never happen. But, I want no part of any GM that would trade Brad Lidge and get back only Jerome Williams.

[JeffH]

Even if I were prohibited from turning around and trading Lidge again, I would trade Williams for Lidge so fast your head would spin.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos.

 

It's also about precieved value, there isn't a GM in baseball that would rather have Williams over Lidge. Besides guys like Lidge are A LOT harder to find than Williams.

 

I thought you weren't in to VORP. Aren't rate stats your thing anyway?

 

I wasn't talking about perceived value, obviously most teams would jump at the concept of trading someone like Williams for Lidge, although as Blueheart pointed out, it doesn't make sense with the current Cubs team.

 

And yes, I'm a big rate stats guy. But when you're comparing a starter to a reliever, where the differennce in playing time can be 3x as many as the other player, cumulative stats are necessary to illustrate the actual value the reliever has. A difference between 200+ innings and 70+ innings is much different than Tejada playing 160 games and Ramirez playing 140, which was the topic earlier when I preferred rate stats.

 

I understansd the more innings point but I'll take a dominant relief ace over an average starter any day. Dominant players at their respective positions are hard to find.

[2242005CY]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

What?? HUH??? I have to disagree with BIG TIME on your opinion of Williams is of equal value as Lidge. Obviously you believe Williams is more than a #3 Pitcher ( I don't have him higher than a 4) and will have a very good career as a Starting Pitcher. That's where we disagree. And you reasoning that he's of as equal value cuz he's a starter and pitches more Innings, doesn't make sense to me. The biggest reason why it doesn't make sense is cuz the Jerome Williams' of MLB are a dime a dozen. but a closer of Lidge's caliber are hard to find.

 

Bottomline, if you think Jerome Williams would be a better piece in a trade than Lidge, we disagree, BIG TIME.

 

EDIT: Didn't bother reading any responses to your opinion, though I probably should've , cuz I just read Hosak's and we use the same argument and think alike on this topic.

Edited December 20, 2005 by #2242005CY

[Guest]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

Look at it this way: Over a full season's worth of starts Williams is likely to throw about 200 innings. In the closer's role Lidge is probably going to throw about 80 innings. Now let's assume that both men perform at levels roughly equal to their career averages in those innings. (3.90 ERA for Williams, 2.70 ERA for Lidge.) So in his 200 innings Williams would give up about 87 runs while Lidge would give up 24 runs in his outings.

 

A replacement-level pitcher in the NL should give you an ERA around 6.00. Swapping him in for Williams means he'd give up 133 runs while he'd give up 53 if he took over Lidge's innings. Over the replacement-level player, then, Williams is saving your team 46 runs for the season while Lidge is only saving your team 29 runs despite having much better rate stats.

 

Now not all runs are created equal, and Lidge's innings at the end of the game are going to be higher-leverage and more valuable from a runs to wins standpoint. Despite this, Williams' 50%+ advantage in RSAR is a tough gap for Lidge to make up from a value perspective. Throw in their disparate ages and costs and I can easily see a team valuing Williams more than Lidge depending on their needs/situation.

[Hosak8]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos.

 

It's also about precieved value, there isn't a GM in baseball that would rather have Williams over Lidge. Besides guys like Lidge are A LOT harder to find than Williams.

 

I thought you weren't in to VORP. Aren't rate stats your thing anyway?

 

I wasn't talking about perceived value, obviously most teams would jump at the concept of trading someone like Williams for Lidge, although as Blueheart pointed out, it doesn't make sense with the current Cubs team.

 

And yes, I'm a big rate stats guy. But when you're comparing a starter to a reliever, where the differennce in playing time can be 3x as many as the other player, cumulative stats are necessary to illustrate the actual value the reliever has. A difference between 200+ innings and 70+ innings is much different than Tejada playing 160 games and Ramirez playing 140, which was the topic earlier when I preferred rate stats.

 

CP...

 

I'm sorry... I just don't understand the mentality that Williams is more valuable because of the number of innings he may *potentially* pitch. How does an extra 100 innings of fewer K's, more base runners, and more earned runs benefit a team? I sincerely don't get it.

 

Hey, you are entitled to your opinion. And, we may just have to agree to disagree. I just don't buy into the value of Williams. He's common, and if he were still a Giant, no one here would be clamoring for him.

[Blueheart05]

Even if I were prohibited from turning around and trading Lidge again, I would trade Williams for Lidge so fast your head would spin.

 

LOL, I'm not being clear. I value Lidge but I would be disappointed if the Cubs got another bullpen arm (no matter how good) considering the problems on this current team. As it stands, the Cubs realistically need a SP and a RF. Keeping Lidge and subtracting Williams really doesn't better the Cubs for 2006. If anything it leaves them with less to trade for unless they all of a sudden go after a pitcher in the dwindling FA market.

 

Again, I love Lidge but I don't see how he makes sense for the Cubs as they are currently constructed.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I understansd the more innings point but I'll take a dominant relief ace over an average starter any day. Dominant players at their respective positions are hard to find.

 

You still have to consider how much value they're actually going to bring though. To use an extreme example, would you trade an average second baseman for a dominant pinch hitter(assuming you were forced to keep him on the bench)? That's the point I'm getting at.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's not a difficult argument to make that Williams(or any starting pitcher of a certain ability) is at least as valuable as Lidge, if not more.

 

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

 

Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality.

 

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

 

So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right?

 

And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game.

 

You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge.

 

People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

 

It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos.

 

It's also about precieved value, there isn't a GM in baseball that would rather have Williams over Lidge. Besides guys like Lidge are A LOT harder to find than Williams.

 

I thought you weren't in to VORP. Aren't rate stats your thing anyway?

 

I wasn't talking about perceived value, obviously most teams would jump at the concept of trading someone like Williams for Lidge, although as Blueheart pointed out, it doesn't make sense with the current Cubs team.

 

And yes, I'm a big rate stats guy. But when you're comparing a starter to a reliever, where the differennce in playing time can be 3x as many as the other player, cumulative stats are necessary to illustrate the actual value the reliever has. A difference between 200+ innings and 70+ innings is much different than Tejada playing 160 games and Ramirez playing 140, which was the topic earlier when I preferred rate stats.

 

CP...

 

I'm sorry... I just don't understand the mentality that Williams is more valuable because of the number of innings he may *potentially* pitch. How does an extra 100 innings of fewer K's, more base runners, and more earned runs benefit a team? I sincerely don't get it.

 

Hey, you are entitled to your opinion. And, we may just have to agree to disagree. I just don't buy into the value of Williams. He's common, and if he were still a Giant, no one here would be clamoring for him.

 

Check BK's reply on the previous page, it illustrates the point really well IMO.

[Guest]

I'm sorry... I just don't understand the mentality that Williams is more valuable because of the number of innings he may *potentially* pitch. How does an extra 100 innings of fewer K's, more base runners, and more earned runs benefit a team? I sincerely don't get it.

Because 180 innings of good performance (Williams) is almost certainly better than 80 innings of great performance (Lidge) + 100 innings of replacement-level performance.

[BigbadB]

Even if I were prohibited from turning around and trading Lidge again, I would trade Williams for Lidge so fast your head would spin.

 

LOL, I'm not being clear. I value Lidge but I would be disappointed if the Cubs got another bullpen arm (no matter how good) considering the problems on this current team. As it stands, the Cubs realistically need a SP and a RF. Keeping Lidge and subtracting Williams really doesn't better the Cubs for 2006. If anything it leaves them with less to trade for unless they all of a sudden go after a pitcher in the dwindling FA market.

 

Again, I love Lidge but I don't see how he makes sense for the Cubs as they are currently constructed.

 

I believe these are hypothetical sitations where they are comparing the values between Williams and Lidge. I don't think anyone is actually saying we should exchange pitchers.

[2242005CY]

I'm sorry... I just don't understand the mentality that Williams is more valuable because of the number of innings he may *potentially* pitch. How does an extra 100 innings of fewer K's, more base runners, and more earned runs benefit a team? I sincerely don't get it.

Because 180 innings of good performance (Williams) is almost certainly better than 80 innings of great performance (Lidge) + 100 innings of replacement-level performance.

 

So then Bob, you're saying if you were the Phillies you would take Williams over Lidge? That is what you're saying right? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I understansd the more innings point but I'll take a dominant relief ace over an average starter any day. Dominant players at their respective positions are hard to find.

 

You still have to consider how much value they're actually going to bring though. To use an extreme example, would you trade an average second baseman for a dominant pinch hitter(assuming you were forced to keep him on the bench)? That's the point I'm getting at.

 

Again, I understand your point however it's much eaiser to replace an avg starter than it would a relief ace like Lidge. Therefore I would value him more. And your right that is an extreme example - the gap between a pitch hitter and an everyday 2B is MUCH larger than a starter and reliever. Plus I don't think everyone has the makeup to be a closer so that also has value (I understand some people don't agree with this and that's fine).

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I'm sorry... I just don't understand the mentality that Williams is more valuable because of the number of innings he may *potentially* pitch. How does an extra 100 innings of fewer K's, more base runners, and more earned runs benefit a team? I sincerely don't get it.

Because 180 innings of good performance (Williams) is almost certainly better than 80 innings of great performance (Lidge) + 100 innings of replacement-level performance.

 

Yes, but it's easier to find average starters than relief aces.

[goonys evil twin]

I'd much rather have Lidge than Williams. I'd rather have a great starter than a great closer. I'd rather have a good starter than a great closer, and an average starter over an average closer.

 

Starters are more valuable than closers. And it's not absurd to talk about Williams value in reference to Lidge.

 

But I'd trade Williams for Lidge in a heartbeat, and Philly should take Lidge over Williams in a heartbeat. Lidge is not a dime a dozen closer. He's not Alfonseca, Looper or Kolb. He's no flash in the pan. I think relievers in general have short shelf lifes, which is why I am not enamored with the acquisitions of Howry or Eyre. But lock down dominant closers tend to have a longer shelf life, and do have great value.

 

That being said, if the offer was Lidge, or Williams, Pie, Wuertz/Novoa, and Guzman, I'd take the Cubs offer if I was Philly. A closer is great, but it's not as great as 3 arms and a hot CF prospect.

[Hosak8]

Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well.

Here being nsbb.com? Perhaps I've just clicked on the wrong threads, but you seem to often include a shot at the board in general when you make your points, and I see little reason for that.

 

1908...

 

Yes, here being NSBB. Don't misunderstand... I like this forum, and I believe that this site has the most insightful baseball fans that I have ever encountered on the internet. I appreciate the stats and useful information that one can find here. And, despite compaints to the contrary, I have found that there is a fair amount of dissenting opinion.

 

However, it has been my observation that posters here tend to WAY overvalue Cubs players and prospects. Perhaps you consider that hyperbole on my part. That's okay. Maybe I consider it hyperbole on your part that you say I "often" include shots at this forum. Have I done that before? Yep. Often? Nope.

 

Sorry if I offended anyone. That wasn't really my intention.