Westbrook

[Soriano12]

You're really going to lean on wins for your argument?

 

Aren't we past the baseball dark ages yet?

 

Wins no good, ok...This guy could realisticallly post a below 4.00 ERA,

and give you 200+ solid innings. At the cost of Weurtz?, heck I'll drive Mike to O'Hare and stick around to pick up Jake.

[jjgman21]

 

He's a three on many teams, yes. So are a bunch of the FA pitchers out there that we wouldn't have to give up talent to acquire.

 

here's the problem with that tough...the Cubs need both pitching and hitting and can only sign 2 or 3 more free agents.

 

I don't care about Westbrook one way or the other over many of the guys available in free agency, but someone is going to have to come via trade.

[Guest]

You're really going to lean on wins for your argument?

 

Aren't we past the baseball dark ages yet?

 

Wins no good, ok...This guy could realisticallly post a below 4.00 ERA,

and give you 200+ solid innings. At the cost of Weurtz?, heck I'll drive Mike to O'Hare and stick around to pick up Jake.

Westbrook's most similar pitchers according to baseball-reference:

 

1.) Jason Marquis (no I didn't see this before I made the comparison earlier!)

2.) Joel Piniero (anyone knocking doors down to get him?)

 

And, for the sake of fairness...

 

3.) Bronson Arroyo (people are going to hang their hats on this one, I know...)

 

Marquis could realistically post an ERA below 4.00 and pitch 200+ solid innings, too. Didn't I see you you slam Hendry for wanting to sign him? You know, the #1 comparable for Westbrook?

[Guest]

 

He's a three on many teams, yes. So are a bunch of the FA pitchers out there that we wouldn't have to give up talent to acquire.

 

here's the problem with that tough...the Cubs need both pitching and hitting and can only sign 2 or 3 more free agents.

 

I don't care about Westbrook one way or the other over many of the guys available in free agency, but someone is going to have to come via trade.

The Cubs can only sign 2 or 3 more A/B free agents, true. There are comparable pitchers who aren't A/B free agents out there such as Marquis and Igawa, though.

 

And we can trade for Manny to add to the lineup. ;)

[Mephistopheles]

]By VORP he was the 42nd best pitcher in the game last year, and he had a terrible BABIP year. In 2004 he was 14th in baseball in VORP.

 

No one's saying his 2004 production was bad, just expecting it to ever occur again or get close isn't a good idea. We shouldn't be concerned on what he has done, just what he will do. He didn't have a terrible BABIP last season. It was slightly worse than average. His 2004 and 2005 were bigger anamolies and helped him.

 

He had it coming.

 

2004: 14.1 LD%, .272 BABIP against

2005: 18.0 LD%, .287 BABIP against

2006: 17.3 LD%, .322 BABIP against

 

I'd say that his 2006 is much more flukish, and I think you could make the argument that 2004 and 2005 aren't too out of whack either.

 

Ha! I was looking at Baseball Reference's career splits when I thought I had this seasons. Oops! Oh well considering his career BABIP is .306, I would believe he's going to be much closer to that than his 04 or 05 BABIP 20 points lower. Anyways controlling LD% isn't much of a skill. It's likely that the 2004 was a huge outlier at under 15 percent. Though his high GB rates does keep it down some.

[jtownie]

]By VORP he was the 42nd best pitcher in the game last year, and he had a terrible BABIP year. In 2004 he was 14th in baseball in VORP.

 

No one's saying his 2004 production was bad, just expecting it to ever occur again or get close isn't a good idea. We shouldn't be concerned on what he has done, just what he will do. He didn't have a terrible BABIP last season. It was slightly worse than average. His 2004 and 2005 were bigger anamolies and helped him.

 

He had it coming.

 

2004: 14.1 LD%, .272 BABIP against

2005: 18.0 LD%, .287 BABIP against

2006: 17.3 LD%, .322 BABIP against

 

I'd say that his 2006 is much more flukish, and I think you could make the argument that 2004 and 2005 aren't too out of whack either.

 

Not trying to nitpick here but I think his 2005 breaks down as:

 

20.1 LD%; .295 BABIP

 

 

either way this guy is going to be cheaper than FA that may or may not give similar numbers. He'll be cheaper in salary. As Tim has stated it comes down to cost.

Now we can either sign a FA pitcher for 8-10+ million for 3-4 years or get this guy for a year for some marginal talent and then let him walk and get the picks for him. He was a Type A this year if I am reading Elias correctly. So that's a potential 1st-round pick.

 

edit: I, in no way, endorse going after this guy for anything but low cost. In fact, if we can get rid of an Eyre or Izturis in the deal all the better as that frees up additional cash for FA. it'd be nice to get Peralta in the deal somehow but that's distracting from the debate on hand.

Edited November 18, 2006 by jtownie

[Guest]

You're really going to lean on wins for your argument?

 

Aren't we past the baseball dark ages yet?

 

Wins no good, ok...This guy could realisticallly post a below 4.00 ERA,

and give you 200+ solid innings. At the cost of Weurtz?, heck I'll drive Mike to O'Hare and stick around to pick up Jake.

Westbrook's most similar pitchers according to baseball-reference:

 

1.) Jason Marquis (no I didn't see this before I made the comparison earlier!)

2.) Joel Piniero (anyone knocking doors down to get him?)

 

And, for the sake of fairness...

 

3.) Bronson Arroyo (people are going to hang their hats on this one, I know...)

 

Marquis could realistically post an ERA below 4.00 and pitch 200+ solid innings, too. Didn't I see you you slam Hendry for wanting to sign him? You know, the #1 comparable for Westbrook?

 

heh, I pointed out the marquis similarity two days ago. westbrook is basically league average and that's not so bad. I don't get excited about him but he's not the end of the world either. No way I trade Murton for him though.

[Guest]

I'll ask again, do people here think Shapiro is stupid? If this guy is better than the FA pitchers out there who are going to command up to $40M in salary commitment, why on earth would he trade Westbrook for marginal talent?

 

Something's not right there. Because I'm pretty sure Shapiro isn't stupid.

[UK1679666180]

He's nothing exciting, best quality is the ability to stay healthy and give you avg. production with high IP.

 

Like you said, all depends on cost.

 

I'm indifferent on him.

[Guest]

You're really going to lean on wins for your argument?

 

Aren't we past the baseball dark ages yet?

 

Wins no good, ok...This guy could realisticallly post a below 4.00 ERA,

and give you 200+ solid innings. At the cost of Weurtz?, heck I'll drive Mike to O'Hare and stick around to pick up Jake.

Westbrook's most similar pitchers according to baseball-reference:

 

1.) Jason Marquis (no I didn't see this before I made the comparison earlier!)

2.) Joel Piniero (anyone knocking doors down to get him?)

 

And, for the sake of fairness...

 

3.) Bronson Arroyo (people are going to hang their hats on this one, I know...)

 

Marquis could realistically post an ERA below 4.00 and pitch 200+ solid innings, too. Didn't I see you you slam Hendry for wanting to sign him? You know, the #1 comparable for Westbrook?

 

heh, I pointed out the marquis similarity two days ago. westbrook is basically league average and that's not so bad. I don't get excited about him but he's not the end of the world either. No way I trade Murton for him though.

Sorry, wasn't online that much this week. I'll give you full credit for the comp from now on. ;)

[Guest]

You're really going to lean on wins for your argument?

 

Aren't we past the baseball dark ages yet?

 

Wins no good, ok...This guy could realisticallly post a below 4.00 ERA,

and give you 200+ solid innings. At the cost of Weurtz?, heck I'll drive Mike to O'Hare and stick around to pick up Jake.

Westbrook's most similar pitchers according to baseball-reference:

 

1.) Jason Marquis (no I didn't see this before I made the comparison earlier!)

2.) Joel Piniero (anyone knocking doors down to get him?)

 

And, for the sake of fairness...

 

3.) Bronson Arroyo (people are going to hang their hats on this one, I know...)

 

Marquis could realistically post an ERA below 4.00 and pitch 200+ solid innings, too. Didn't I see you you slam Hendry for wanting to sign him? You know, the #1 comparable for Westbrook?

 

heh, I pointed out the marquis similarity two days ago. westbrook is basically league average and that's not so bad. I don't get excited about him but he's not the end of the world either. No way I trade Murton for him though.

Sorry, wasn't online that much this week. I'll give you full credit for the comp from now on. ;)

 

please add an asterisk to any such references if you would.

 

That wasn't my point though. I just think its funny that westbrook is sought after and marquis is the devil.

[Guest]

He's nothing exciting, best quality is the ability to stay healthy and give you avg. production with high IP.

 

Like you said, all depends on cost.

 

I'm indifferent on him.

 

have you considered his BABIP?

 

I need a beer badly.

[jjgman21]

 

He's a three on many teams, yes. So are a bunch of the FA pitchers out there that we wouldn't have to give up talent to acquire.

 

here's the problem with that tough...the Cubs need both pitching and hitting and can only sign 2 or 3 more free agents.

 

I don't care about Westbrook one way or the other over many of the guys available in free agency, but someone is going to have to come via trade.

The Cubs can only sign 2 or 3 more A/B free agents, true. There are comparable pitchers who aren't A/B free agents out there such as Marquis and Igawa, though.

 

And we can trade for Manny to add to the lineup. ;)

 

according to this, Marquis is a B

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2006-10-31-elias-rankings.htm

 

 

you don't want to trade away a ton of talent, then turn around and say trade for Manny? I understand the difference between the impact the two players would bring, but certainly you have to see the difference in the players it would take to get Manny.

 

furthermore, I would hate to see Manny on the trade market because the Astros would blow any offer the Cubs could make out of the water.

 

 

 

 

but I think all the Marquis and Westbrook discussion is moot. don't know why, but I get the feeling the Cubs target is Jennings and for some reason, with the Rockies need for a shortstop and lefty relief and Jennings in the last year of his deal, I think the Cubs might get it done for a steal.

[Guest]

could the astros pay manny though?

[UK1679666180]

He's nothing exciting, best quality is the ability to stay healthy and give you avg. production with high IP.

 

Like you said, all depends on cost.

 

I'm indifferent on him.

 

have you considered his BABIP?

 

I need a beer badly.

 

How many doubles did he give up? :)

[JeffH]

Marquis is a pretty poor comparison with Westbrook.

 

Westbrook's profile is extreme anti-HR. Marquis is a HR factory.

 

Hitting home runs is an extremely efficient way to score runs.

 

Preventing the opposition from hitting them is good - very good.

[Guest]

please add an asterisk to any such references if you would.

Consider it done! :D

 

That wasn't my point though. I just think its funny that westbrook is sought after and marquis is the devil.

Yeah, me too. I also find it interesting that people think Shapiro is a moron.

[jjgman21]

I'll ask again, do people here think Shapiro is stupid?

 

that's a good question.

 

tell me Cubs fans, if the Cubs went from 93 wins one year to 78 the next, would you call your GM stupid?

 

Paul Byrd, Lou Merloni, Danny Graves, Steve Karsay, Einar Diaz, Jason Johnson, Dutchvalue, the Crisp trade, and the disassembly of a solid pen.

 

are these the genius moves that put that 93 win team over the top?

 

 

the grass is always greener my friends.

[Guest]

according to this, Marquis is a B

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2006-10-31-elias-rankings.htm

Learn something new every day! That makes Jason a bit less interesting.

 

 

you don't want to trade away a ton of talent, then turn around and say trade for Manny? I understand the difference between the impact the two players would bring, but certainly you have to see the difference in the players it would take to get Manny.

 

furthermore, I would hate to see Manny on the trade market because the Astros would blow any offer the Cubs could make out of the water.

I don't think the Astros would bid for Manny unless Boston ate salary. The Cubs could blow any Astros offer out of the water by taking on the whole deal. If the Astros had wanted Manny that badly, they could have had him without giving up any talent in the past.

 

 

but I think all the Marquis and Westbrook discussion is moot. don't know why, but I get the feeling the Cubs target is Jennings and for some reason, with the Rockies need for a shortstop and lefty relief and Jennings in the last year of his deal, I think the Cubs might get it done for a steal.

Rockies don't need a SS if they feel Tulo is near ready.

[jjgman21]

could the astros pay manny though?

 

they lose Pettitte, Clemens and Bagwells salary this year, and I think reduced Biggios salary.

[Guest]

Marquis is a pretty poor comparison with Westbrook.

 

Westbrook's profile is extreme anti-HR. Marquis is a HR factory.

 

Hitting home runs is an extremely efficient way to score runs.

 

Preventing the opposition from hitting them is good - very good.

1. I'm pretty sure StL is more homer friendly that the Jake.

2. That's certainly why Marquis sucked this season. But he's been a sinkerball / anti-hr guy in the past.

[Mephistopheles]

Looking at the pitchers who changed leagues from 1994-2005 with 100 innings we have a sample size of 115 pitchers. On average their ERA's went down .61 points making the switch. However the r correlation was a lowly .356 which is lower than the normal year to year correlation.

 

To break it up even further, their K rate increase 10.6%. Their BB rate went down 2.8%. Their HR rate went down 5.6%. Of course these translations aren't going to be linear. Best fit equations for each: (I used K/9, BB/9 and HR/9)

 

1.3074* ((AL BB/9)^ 0.6872) = NL BB/9; r^2 = .528

0.0222*(AL K/9)^2 + 0.5307*(AL K/9) + 2.4676 = NL K/9; r^2 = .564

0.2572(AL HR/9)^2 - 0.2701*(AL K/9) + 0.9832 = NL HR/9; r^2 = .159

 

The HR rate is probably because I didn't adjust it for parks. But oh well. Eh. there's really no reason to adjust ERAs and come up with an equation. Sure on average they lose about .6 from their ERA, but look at the graph. The r correlation shows it's meaningless. It's much better to look at his periphs than look at his ERA and just say it's in the AL and will go down. Statistically speaking a r correl of .356 would be saying that his AL era has about 12% to do with what his ERA will in the NL.

 

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f189/kctigers23/ERACOMP1.jpg

Edited November 18, 2006 by Mephistopheles

[Guest]

Nice work. Looks like a very random scatter diagram to my eyes. Your results could also be impacted by just a few pitchers getting better or declining naturally as they change leagues. With such a weak value, it's really tough to disern that small correlation from causation.

[jjgman21]

according to this, Marquis is a B

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2006-10-31-elias-rankings.htm

Learn something new every day! That makes Jason a bit less interesting.

 

 

you don't want to trade away a ton of talent, then turn around and say trade for Manny? I understand the difference between the impact the two players would bring, but certainly you have to see the difference in the players it would take to get Manny.

 

furthermore, I would hate to see Manny on the trade market because the Astros would blow any offer the Cubs could make out of the water.

I don't think the Astros would bid for Manny unless Boston ate salary. The Cubs could blow any Astros offer out of the water by taking on the whole deal. If the Astros had wanted Manny that badly, they could have had him without giving up any talent in the past.

 

 

but I think all the Marquis and Westbrook discussion is moot. don't know why, but I get the feeling the Cubs target is Jennings and for some reason, with the Rockies need for a shortstop and lefty relief and Jennings in the last year of his deal, I think the Cubs might get it done for a steal.

Rockies don't need a SS if they feel Tulo is near ready.

 

the Astros are rumored to be in the Soriano/Lee/Drew bidding (plus they shedded alot of salary), so obviously they have some money to spend. and if the prospects and major league talent were attractive enough, there is no reason the RedSox wouldn't eat a few million.

 

small sample size, but Tulowitzki pretty much proved unready last season.

[jjgman21]

Marquis is a pretty poor comparison with Westbrook.

 

Westbrook's profile is extreme anti-HR. Marquis is a HR factory.

 

Hitting home runs is an extremely efficient way to score runs.

 

Preventing the opposition from hitting them is good - very good.

1. I'm pretty sure StL is more homer friendly that the Jake.

2. That's certainly why Marquis sucked this season. But he's been a sinkerball / anti-hr guy in the past.

 

1. according to however baseballreference does their ranking, no. they were about equal. he also gave up about as many on the road as at home.

2. 26, 29, 35

 

I don't want Jake Westbrook, but to say Marquis would be just as good is absurd. the guys stats vs. last year .364/.509/.873. on average, every single batter when facing Jason Marquis is about as good as the Cubs best batter.