Abreu to Houston Rumor

[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.

 

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.

 

I realize that but I also mentioned in my posts that I was talking about the current Cubs team and people responded with surprise. All things being equal, I would take Lidge over Williams because it's easier to fill a slot for a number 3/4 pitcher than a dominant bullpen person (if there is a need. Obviously, I wouldn't if I had Rivera, Gagne in his hayday, or Wagner). Team needs dictate every acquisition..

[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.

 

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.

I suppose it would depend on who Williams or Lidge would be bumping from the rotation and bullpen, respectively. (And I'm not fully up to speed on their pitching situation to make that call at this point.) I will say, however, that a team would have to have a pretty good starting rotation (or absolutely atrocious bullpen) to nullify the IP value that Williams brings to the table.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

I notice it all the time.

 

It's not just NSBB.com. The value of a closer is much debated. The straight up innings comparison would tend to favor the pitcher. Lots of studies have made it seem like a Williams Lidge comparison is not so absurd as one may thing.

 

Starters are more valuable than relievers. Closers are overrated. I believe these things.

 

But I still believe Lidge is more valuable than Williams. And I believe it's completely unnecessary of you to continually insult the posters here with those types of comments.

[Hosak8]

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

 

I've seen it and I disagree wholeheartedly.

[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.

 

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.

I suppose it would depend on who Williams or Lidge would be bumping from the rotation and bullpen, respectively. (And I'm not fully up to speed on their pitching situation to make that call at this point.) I will say, however, that a team would have to have a pretty good starting rotation (or absolutely atrocious bullpen) to nullify the IP value that Williams brings to the table.

 

One other thing, Williams has never pitched 180 innings because he can't stay healthy.

[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.

I suppose it would depend on who Williams or Lidge would be bumping from the rotation and bullpen, respectively. (And I'm not fully up to speed on their pitching situation to make that call at this point.) I will say, however, that a team would have to have a pretty good starting rotation (or absolutely atrocious bullpen) to nullify the IP value that Williams brings to the table.

 

Fair enough (but I still wouldn't rather have Williams over Lidge, ever.). But as far as Williams goes, at this point in time, I still don't know what his role with the Cubs will be in 2006. Let's PRETEND and believe that Wood will be Healthy in 2006. Does Williams work long relief in the pen or will the Cubs go with 3 Lefties in the pen and have Rusch be long relief?

 

BP would be:

Williamson

Eyre

Howry

Wuertz

Ohman

Dempster

Williams/Rusch

 

The Cubs have to trade Wellemeyer (out of options)1 way or the other or Williams. Even at 7 in the BP.

Edited December 20, 2005 by #2242005CY

[Hosak8]

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.

I suppose it would depend on who Williams or Lidge would be bumping from the rotation and bullpen, respectively. (And I'm not fully up to speed on their pitching situation to make that call at this point.) I will say, however, that a team would have to have a pretty good starting rotation (or absolutely atrocious bullpen) to nullify the IP value that Williams brings to the table.

 

One other thing, Williams has never pitched 180 innings because he can't stay healthy.

 

His career high is 131, I believe. And, if anyone can look at his 2005 and call him "good", I will have to redefine my definition of "good". That isn't to say he won't improve. Maybe he will. But 180+ innings of what we got in 2005? No thanks.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

I suppose it would depend on who Williams or Lidge would be bumping from the rotation and bullpen, respectively. (And I'm not fully up to speed on their pitching situation to make that call at this point.) I will say, however, that a team would have to have a pretty good starting rotation (or absolutely atrocious bullpen) to nullify the IP value that Williams brings to the table.

 

One other thing, Williams has never pitched 180 innings because he can't stay healthy.

 

He threw over 180 in '03, and nearly 180 this year between the Major Leagues and AAA.

[Guest]

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

 

I've seen it and I disagree wholeheartedly.

What exactly do you disagree with? I didn't double-check my back of the envelope calculations but I'm pretty sure the math is solid. From an absolute runs saved perspective Williams is the better pitcher. This depends on the baseline against you are measuring, of course: Against replacement players Williams' innings win out, but if you're comparing against league-average players Lidge's superior rate stats win out. Once again, the player I would choose in a trade would depend on my team's specific needs.

[goonys evil twin]

One other thing, Williams has never pitched 180 innings because he can't stay healthy.

 

That is a distortion of the truth.

 

While I would say it is unwise to think of him as a lock for 180 innings, he has done it. In 2003, at age 21 by the way, he threw 189 between AAA (57) and the major leagues (131). This year, between AAA, Chicago and SF he was at 177, and did not miss the 180 mark because of health. It's been more of a readiness issue with him. He just turned 24.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

His career high is 131, I believe. And, if anyone can look at his 2005 and call him "good", I will have to redefine my definition of "good". That isn't to say he won't improve. Maybe he will. But 180+ innings of what we got in 2005? No thanks.

 

Williams had a 3.90 ERA as a Cub. That would place him in the top 45 starters in MLB for that metric.

 

EDIT: His 1.35 WHIP as a Cub would be 30th in the NL. Both placing him in the range of a 2 starter, which I think would qualify as good.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Transmogrified Tiger

[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.

 

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.

I suppose it would depend on who Williams or Lidge would be bumping from the rotation and bullpen, respectively. (And I'm not fully up to speed on their pitching situation to make that call at this point.) I will say, however, that a team would have to have a pretty good starting rotation (or absolutely atrocious bullpen) to nullify the IP value that Williams brings to the table.

 

One other thing, Williams has never pitched 180 innings because he can't stay healthy.

 

He threw over 180 in '03, and nearly 180 this year between the Major Leagues and AAA.

 

03 you must be adding minors? I didn't know he was in the minor last year. What is your source? I'm not asking because I don't believe you but I want a good website to check minor league stats.

[goonys evil twin]

03 you must be adding minors? I didn't know he was in the minor last year. What is your source? I'm not asking because I don't believe you but I want a good website to check minor league stats.

 

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/W/jerome-williams.shtml

[Hosak8]

I notice it all the time.

 

You do? Examples? I'm curious...

[CardsFanInChiTown]

One other thing, Williams has never pitched 180 innings because he can't stay healthy.

 

That is a distortion of the truth.

 

While I would say it is unwise to think of him as a lock for 180 innings, he has done it. In 2003, at age 21 by the way, he threw 189 between AAA (57) and the major leagues (131). This year, between AAA, Chicago and SF he was at 177, and did not miss the 180 mark because of health. It's been more of a readiness issue with him. He just turned 24.

 

I just read a scouting report saying he wasn't durable and he needs to work on conditioning then I looked up his innings pitched per year and I thought he must have been injured. My mistake.

[CuseCubFan69]

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

 

I've seen it and I disagree wholeheartedly.

What exactly do you disagree with? I didn't double-check my back of the envelope calculations but I'm pretty sure the math is solid. From an absolute runs saved perspective Williams is the better pitcher. This depends on the baseline against you are measuring, of course: Against replacement players Williams' innings win out, but if you're comparing against league-average players Lidge's superior rate stats win out. Once again, the player I would choose in a trade would depend on my team's specific needs.

 

"BK...I trust your guesses more than I would another persons fact."

 

James T. Kirk

[Diffusion]

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.

 

Moving "replacement" level around changes things though. If you can readily find a pitcher with a 4.725 ERA or lower, then Lidge saves you more runs than him over 80 innings than Williams saves over 200 innings. And personally, I believe that there are plenty of pitchers around that an NL team could employ to throw 200 innings of 4.725 ERA (the reason that few do actually "achieve" 200+ IP, 4.75+ ERA is obviously that teams generally try to avoid having pretty rubbish pitchers getting so many innings). As such, I don't think even an entirely quantitative argument that Williams' performance is better than Lidge's holds much water.

[goonys evil twin]

I notice it all the time.

 

You do? Examples? I'm curious...

 

Well, I can't do a search. I just noticed your avater really stands out, and the last time I recognized it was from a time when you took a similar shot at people on this board, and I thought the same thing.

 

The "only here" thing was both inaccurate (the starter vs closer debate is widespread) and unnecessary. Why couldn't you just say you completely disagree, and state your reasons why. It's not as absurd an idea as you might think, although in this case, I agree with you that Lidge is worth more than Williams.

[Diffusion]

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.

 

Moving "replacement" level around changes things though. If you can readily find a pitcher with a 4.725 ERA or lower, then Lidge saves you more runs than him over 80 innings than Williams saves over 200 innings. And personally, I believe that there are plenty of pitchers around that an NL team could employ to throw 200 innings of 4.725 ERA (the reason that few do actually "achieve" 200+ IP, 4.75+ ERA is obviously that teams generally try to avoid having pretty rubbish pitchers getting so many innings). As such, I don't think even an entirely quantitative argument that Williams' performance is better than Lidge's holds much water.

 

Oh, and I should add that that's running with Lidge as a 2.70 ERA pitcher. Over the last two years though, since he essentially broke out, even if you include his postseason performance for the sake of trying to increase the sample size (and hold his "meltdown" against him), he's put up a 2.13 ERA (in 190.1 IP) with a 2.07 FIPS ERA. All in a hitter's park.

 

So, if you call Lidge a 2.10 ERA pitcher rather than a 2.70 ERA pitcher, the point at which he's preventing more runs over 80 innings than a 3.90 ERA Jerome Williams is over 200 innings moves to a readily available 4.95 ERA pitcher.

 

And that's running with the fact that Williams is a 3.90 ERA pitcher, which potentially really flatters him at this stage given that his career FIPS ERA is 4.36 and his FIPS in his time with the Cubs last year was 4.83. And on top of that San Francisco is nice and pitcher friendly. Hmm.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Diffusion

[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.

 

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.

The search function is disabled at the moment so I cannot count the instances easily. I will say that you make comments like that one more frequently than the majority of our membership, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you could make your points without them moving forward.

[Guest]

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.

 

Moving "replacement" level around changes things though. If you can readily find a pitcher with a 4.725 ERA or lower, then Lidge saves you more runs than him over 80 innings than Williams saves over 200 innings.

Yeah, I know:

 

This depends on the baseline against you are measuring, of course: Against replacement players Williams' innings win out, but if you're comparing against league-average players Lidge's superior rate stats win out.

[Diffusion]

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.

 

Moving "replacement" level around changes things though. If you can readily find a pitcher with a 4.725 ERA or lower, then Lidge saves you more runs than him over 80 innings than Williams saves over 200 innings.

Yeah, I know:

 

This depends on the baseline against you are measuring, of course: Against replacement players Williams' innings win out, but if you're comparing against league-average players Lidge's superior rate stats win out.

 

Fair enough. I missed that.

 

All the same, I think that a 4.95 ERA pitcher is readily enough available that Lidge saves more runs over the course of a season than Williams purely from an entirely quantitative point of view. That is, of course, assuming that the readily available pitcher would put up a 4.95 ERA in the rotation and bullpen alike, which I don't think is particularly likely. That adjustment shifts things in Williams' favour, but taking into account the sustainability of Williams' performance over the last few years given his pretty poor peripherals would shift it right back.

 

That's not to say I don't like Williams. I really believe that if he can refine his slider into a legitimate out pitch, he's going to be a really effective major league starter, because his sinker fastball/changeup combination right now is well above average. The slider though is just too fringy at the moment. There's good late movement on it, but it's just not what it could be or what it needs to be for him to really succeed as a starter at this level. His curveball really isn't a good pitch. Williams is young though still in spite of the fact he's proven he can handle the majors, he's only just turned 24, and he's four years away from free agency. He's got time on his side and the odds in his favour. I like him. And I absolutely love the way we got him, buying low. Of course, we were selling low on Hawkins too, but that seemingly didn't stop Hendry ripping off the Giants.

 

But I'd still trade Williams for Brad Lidge so fast it's stupid, regardless of our needs.

[minnesotacubsfan]

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.

 

 

you wrong......quantity doesnt outweigh quality, quantity IS A quality

 

 

that being said......fire Hendry

[Hosak8]

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

 

I've seen it and I disagree wholeheartedly.

What exactly do you disagree with? I didn't double-check my back of the envelope calculations but I'm pretty sure the math is solid. From an absolute runs saved perspective Williams is the better pitcher. This depends on the baseline against you are measuring, of course: Against replacement players Williams' innings win out, but if you're comparing against league-average players Lidge's superior rate stats win out. Once again, the player I would choose in a trade would depend on my team's specific needs.

 

BK...

 

It's not your math that I disagree with. It's the notion that runs saved/VORP- in this case- proves anything. It has been pointed out by others, and you already acknowledged my point that there are several pitchers available whose numbers are well above those that you offered for "replacement" players.

 

No disrespect intended. I just disagree with the notion that Williams has value anywhere near Lidge.

[Hosak8]

I notice it all the time.

 

You do? Examples? I'm curious...

 

Well, I can't do a search. I just noticed your avater really stands out, and the last time I recognized it was from a time when you took a similar shot at people on this board, and I thought the same thing.

 

The "only here" thing was both inaccurate (the starter vs closer debate is widespread) and unnecessary. Why couldn't you just say you completely disagree, and state your reasons why. It's not as absurd an idea as you might think, although in this case, I agree with you that Lidge is worth more than Williams.

 

GET...

 

For the record, I was not using the "only here" in reference to a general closers/starters debate, which I agree can be found all over the place. I used the term to specifically reference the overvaluing of Cubs players, which I believe this whole discussion to be a prime example of. If Williams were a Twin, this debate would have never begun. If Lidge were a Cub and Williams an Astro, the mere suggestion that there would be any comparison between the two would elicit a 15 page thread bashing the suggestion. That's all I'm saying.

 

Again, if I offended anyone, I apologize.