So now what do we do?

[Soul]

Don't get me wrong, I like Z as much as the next guy, but shouldn't elite pitchers win more than 14 games? We know he has the stuff for greatness (as evidenced by his stellar ERA) but wouldn't you agree he has yet to put it all together?

 

why do you keep using wins as a stat that a pitcher should have? for the most part, he can't control that.

 

zambrano is an elite starter and to say otherwise shows ignorance of the facts.

 

Z has elite ability. 1 elite pitcher then Maddux doesn't come close to making us a competitive ballclub.

 

uh....wow. please show me where i said we were going to be competitive. without wood and prior, we're not going to be.

 

Wasn't trying to refute you, man. I was agreeing with you, then adding an additional point. Sorry for confusion.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Maybe our definitions of elite pitchers differs. I consider elite pitchers to be among the top 10 in baseball, and yes, an important aspect of that is wins. I know the argument about the value of ERA, WHIP and BAA (because I've used it plenty to justify Prior and Wood), but shouldn't elite pitchers (who are maximizing their ability) deliver more than 14 wins a season, which is what Z has done the past 3 years). Z is an all-star pitcher and our #1 ace, but he still has to gain consistency to become elite in my book. Hopefully that happens this year.

 

If wins were as important as you claim, you should know that Carlos's career high is 16, not 14.

[TB_11]

I think you start thinking about the unthinkable:

 

Trading Wood and/or Prior.

 

We need to somehow build a rotation that will be able to take the mound regularly. Z should be the anchor. I say give Wood & Prior the rest of this season to see if they can become more reliable.

 

If they both spend the season on & off the DL? Blow it up.

 

Wood: NTC

 

According to Cot's Contracts, the NTC is only for '04-'06 and does not include the option for '07.

 

I'm assuming the Cubs will buyout the last year of his contract for the $3M.

[Andy]

Maybe our definitions of elite pitchers differs. I consider elite pitchers to be among the top 10 in baseball, and yes, an important aspect of that is wins. I know the argument about the value of ERA, WHIP and BAA (because I've used it plenty to justify Prior and Wood), but shouldn't elite pitchers (who are maximizing their ability) deliver more than 14 wins a season, which is what Z has done the past 3 years). Z is an all-star pitcher and our #1 ace, but he still has to gain consistency to become elite in my book. Hopefully that happens this year.

 

If wins were as important as you claim, you should know that Carlos's career high is 16, not 14.

Ah, he was probably thinking of the other Cubs young pitcher that's unfairly blasted for not having enough wins (Wood, whose career high wins is in fact 14).

[badger1679666666]

I think you start thinking about the unthinkable:

 

Trading Wood and/or Prior.

 

We need to somehow build a rotation that will be able to take the mound regularly. Z should be the anchor. I say give Wood & Prior the rest of this season to see if they can become more reliable.

 

If they both spend the season on & off the DL? Blow it up.

 

Wood: NTC

 

According to Cot's Contracts, the NTC is only for '04-'06 and does not include the option for '07.

 

Well they're just going to not pick up his option then. We aren't gonna get anything for Wood. Unless he has a GREAT year and we pick up his 07 option for 13 million. And then, people still probably won't give much up for him, and if he has a great year, I'd want him back in a Cubs uni, because when he's healthy (01-03) he's a #1 pitcher.

[JonnyRed]

Maybe our definitions of elite pitchers differs. I consider elite pitchers to be among the top 10 in baseball, and yes, an important aspect of that is wins. I know the argument about the value of ERA, WHIP and BAA (because I've used it plenty to justify Prior and Wood), but shouldn't elite pitchers (who are maximizing their ability) deliver more than 14 wins a season, which is what Z has done the past 3 years). Z is an all-star pitcher and our #1 ace, but he still has to gain consistency to become elite in my book. Hopefully that happens this year.

 

If wins were as important as you claim, you should know that Carlos's career high is 16, not 14.

 

I do know that Zambrano's career high is 16, but if you read my post, I said he has averaged 14 wins a year. Hey, I'm not trying to say Z isn't an ace pitcher, but wins do matter when you are separating the top 10 pitchers in the league from everyone else. I don't anybody would settle for 14 wins a year from our ace pitcher. Z hasn't reached his potential yet, and hopefully he does it this year.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

wins do matter when you are separating the top 10 pitchers in the league from everyone else

 

Was Clemens top 10 last season? A 1.87 ERA and 1.01 WHIP over 211+ innings is what sets the bar for the rest of the top 10. Too bad he had crappy run support and the TEAM held him to a 13-8 record.

[JonnyRed]

wins do matter when you are separating the top 10 pitchers in the league from everyone else

 

Was Clemens top 10 last season? A 1.87 ERA and 1.01 WHIP over 211+ innings is what sets the bar for the rest of the top 10. Too bad he had crappy run support and the TEAM held him to a 13-8 record.

 

First off, I hate to be arguing this point because I really like Z. All I've been trying to say is that he hasn't proven to be consistent enough to produce the Ws required to be among the elite 10 pitchers in baseball. He clearly has the stuff to be one of the top 5, but to me, you have to win to get there. Sure, Clemens had a tremendous year and didn't win much since he got zero run support, but then again his league-leading ERA was a good 1.5 runs better than Z. He also has 12 seasons of at least 17 wins. Z finished tied for 24 in wins last year. Does that strike you as being elite?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

wins do matter when you are separating the top 10 pitchers in the league from everyone else

 

Was Clemens top 10 last season? A 1.87 ERA and 1.01 WHIP over 211+ innings is what sets the bar for the rest of the top 10. Too bad he had crappy run support and the TEAM held him to a 13-8 record.

 

First off, I hate to be arguing this point because I really like Z. All I've been trying to say is that he hasn't proven to be consistent enough to produce the Ws required to be among the elite 10 pitchers in baseball. He clearly has the stuff to be one of the top 5, but to me, you have to win to get there. Sure, Clemens had a tremendous year and didn't win much since he got zero run support, but then again his league-leading ERA was a good 1.5 runs better than Z. He also has 12 seasons of at least 17 wins. Z finished tied for 24 in wins last year. Does that strike you as being elite?

 

Why does a pitcher have to have a certain amount of wins to be elite? If a pitcher performs to a level and has a decent offense, he'll have x wins. Another pitcher performs the EXACT same, and has a better offense aroudn him, he'll have more than x wins. They performed the exact same, but forces outside their control gives one more wins than the other. The only argument you could make is that a pitcher has a certain "winnability" that allows them to pitch to the situation to get more wins with the same metrics and run support. But compared to other factors, like your offense, it's barely anything. Wins are next to worthless as a metric. It really doesn't mean anything that Carlos doesn't have a 15 win season. Well, it does mean something, but nothing that has to do with Z.

[JonnyRed]

We're not trying to define whether a pitcher is good or not. We are talking about what defines the best in the game. How can wins not factor into the equation? Wins are the ultimate determinant of success, are they not? Next to ERA, WHIP and BAA, how else do you want to judge the elite? Those stats can be used to argue the value of a good pitcher. In fact, I've used them to defend Wood and Prior plenty. But if you are talking about the best in the game you need to produce wins. The best pitchers learn how to finish what they started, and Z is right there, but he has to take the next step to become elite.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

We're not trying to define whether a pitcher is good or not. We are talking about what defines the best in the game. How can wins not factor into the equation? Wins are the ultimate determinant of success, are they not? Next to ERA, WHIP and BAA, how else do you want to judge the elite? Those stats can be used to argue the value of a good pitcher. In fact, I've used them to defend Wood and Prior plenty. But if you are talking about the best in the game you need to produce wins. The best pitchers learn how to finish what they started, and Z is right there, but he has to take the next step to become elite.

 

No, wins are not the determinant of success, that's what I'm saying.

 

So by the end you are arguing about "winnability". That "ability" has much less to do with wins than other factors outside a pitcher's control.

[noisesquared]

wins do matter when you are separating the top 10 pitchers in the league from everyone else

 

Was Clemens top 10 last season? A 1.87 ERA and 1.01 WHIP over 211+ innings is what sets the bar for the rest of the top 10. Too bad he had crappy run support and the TEAM held him to a 13-8 record.

 

I find it odd that Clemens, a 300 game winner, is used as an example for how wins aren't a significant stat for a pitcher :?

 

Last year was an aberration for Clemens - with his peripherals he should have won many more games, much like Wood in 2003. Over the course of one season, the small sample size of starts for one pitcher can allow for good peripheral guys to not win many games, and for bad peripheral guys to win a lot of games. Over a career however, a pitcher who consistently puts up good peripheral stats is consistently giving his team a chance to win, and subsequently that pitcher will win a lot of games.

[sethuel1]

wins do matter when you are separating the top 10 pitchers in the league from everyone else

 

Was Clemens top 10 last season? A 1.87 ERA and 1.01 WHIP over 211+ innings is what sets the bar for the rest of the top 10. Too bad he had crappy run support and the TEAM held him to a 13-8 record.

 

I find it odd that Clemens, a 300 game winner, is used as an example for how wins aren't a significant stat for a pitcher :?

 

Last year was an aberration for Clemens - with his peripherals he should have won many more games, much like Wood in 2003. Over the course of one season, the small sample size of starts for one pitcher can allow for good peripheral guys to not win many games, and for bad peripheral guys to win a lot of games. Over a career however, a pitcher who consistently puts up good peripheral stats is consistently giving his team a chance to win, and subsequently that pitcher will win a lot of games.

 

it depends. Put Roger Clemens, for his career, on last year's Astros, and he won't have so many wins. Put him on offensive juggernauts like, say, the boston, Toronto, and New York teams he was on before that, and yes, he wins a lot of games.

 

basically, it's more dependent on the team than it is on the pitcher. that's why everyone thinks current and/or former Yankees pitchers are amazing (see Pettitte, Andy)

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I find it odd that Clemens, a 300 game winner, is used as an example for how wins aren't a significant stat for a pitcher :?

 

His 300+ "wins" are irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is how elite a pitcher can be by racking up only 13 in a season.

[noisesquared]

I find it odd that Clemens, a 300 game winner, is used as an example for how wins aren't a significant stat for a pitcher :?

 

His 300+ "wins" are irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is how elite a pitcher can be by racking up only 13 in a season.

 

I don't think a pitcher can be 'elite' based on one season's production. I agree that a pitcher can have a great year without racking up wins, but an elite pitcher will win a lot of games more often than not. I believe Clemens is an 'elite' pitcher, but his win totals are a reflection of how good his ERA/WHIP/KtoBB/etc. have been over his career. Even pitching on some less than stellar teams, he has consistently won games because he puts his team in a position to win. In 1997 Clemens won 21 games with Toronto, who were dead last in the AL in runs scored/game.

[CubinNY]

Please let's not have this discussion again.

 

Wins are a team stat not an individual stat. Can we agree on that?