Westbrook

[YearofDaCubs]

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.

IMO Jason Marquis has no business being on this team.

[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.

 

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.

Does b-r break out their park stats by hr? I haven't seen that.

 

is 26 really that different from the 19 that Westbrook gives up?

 

I've fully qualified my comparison by saying that Westbrook is a better version of that ilk of pitcher. I've also said that I expect Westbrook to perform better in 2006. But let me state a theory about gb pitchers who don't strike many out -- they tend to have pretty wide variances on results due to babip fluctuations. They'll have some years where they look like world beaters (Westbrook in 2004, Pavano in 2004, etc.) and they'll have years where they look simply awful.

 

HR profiles can also change over time. Pettitte, as an example, has had years where he allowed jaw-droppingly few HR. And then years where he makes a few more mistakes or hitters punish the mistakes a bit harder. For pitchers who allow a lot of baserunners, that's a really, really bad thing.

 

And Westbrook allows a lot of baserunners.

[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.

 

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.

IMO Jason Marquis has no business being on this team.

Marquis in 2004 and 2005 is fairly hard to distinguish from Westbrook. Yes, he had a bad year this year.

 

It could happen to Westbrook, too.

[jtownie]

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

 

I hate to be THAT guy but could define r correlation? the numbers you posted appear to be very useful but I just am not sure I understand what they mean.

[Neuby]

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?

 

 

 

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?)

 

knocking down doors? If trading from a strength in sending the Indians a guy like Eyre for Westbrook is knocking down doors where in trouble this offseason.

[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?

 

 

 

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?)

 

knocking down doors? If trading from a strength in sending the Indians a guy like Eyre for Westbrook is knocking down doors where in trouble this offseason.

Again, I'll believe we get Westbrook for Eyre when I see it. That rumor is totally out of whack with the reality of the market. If Eyre is all it takes, I'm all over the trade. But I can't see Shapriro settling for Eyre if Westbrook is really that valuable.

[Mephistopheles]

I hate to be THAT guy but could define r correlation? the numbers you posted appear to be very useful but I just am not sure I understand what they mean.

 

Basically it measures how closely related two variables are. An r of 1 would be perfect correlation. An r of 0 would be no correlation. An r of -1 would be perfect inverse correlation. As for the formula it's rather complicated using sum of squares.

 

Oh, and r^2 is simply what it sounds like. The r correlation squared.

[Neuby]

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

 

I don't but I have trouble with peolpe on message boards who think that the Cubs can go out and find a better deal on the open market right now for a # 3 or 4 in your rotation. Funny though Tim how I have seen quite a few posts with you questioning how smart Hendry is but then go silent when guys like Cruz, Choi, and a host of other Cubs prospects fail badly.

[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.

Does b-r break out their park stats by hr? I haven't seen that.

 

is 26 really that different from the 19 that Westbrook gives up?

 

I've fully qualified my comparison by saying that Westbrook is a better version of that ilk of pitcher. I've also said that I expect Westbrook to perform better in 2006. But let me state a theory about gb pitchers who don't strike many out -- they tend to have pretty wide variances on results due to babip fluctuations. They'll have some years where they look like world beaters (Westbrook in 2004, Pavano in 2004, etc.) and they'll have years where they look simply awful.

 

HR profiles can also change over time. Pettitte, as an example, has had years where he allowed jaw-droppingly few HR. And then years where he makes a few more mistakes or hitters punish the mistakes a bit harder. For pitchers who allow a lot of baserunners, that's a really, really bad thing.

 

And Westbrook allows a lot of baserunners.

 

br just has a "favors hitter/favors pitchers" metric centered on 100. Jake is at 97, Stl at 98, both slightly favored pitchers last year.

 

no, 26 and 19 isn't THAT different. however 53 (19,19,15) and 90 are vastly different. especially since those 53 came in about 35 more innings.

 

I respect your theories, but don't necessarily agree (pretty much through with power pitchers that can't throw strikes), but that's not what I am discussing. nor am I arguing for Westbrook because I don't want Westbrook. but even with your qualification, you seem to be going to the farthest neather regions of baseball rationalization to state the case that Marquis is a better choice for the Cubs situation. he's not.

[jjgman21]

Again, I'll believe we get Westbrook for Eyre when I see it. That rumor is totally out of whack with the reality of the market. If Eyre is all it takes, I'm all over the trade. But I can't see Shapriro settling for Eyre if Westbrook is really that valuable.

 

you seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. half this thread is you areguing how poor Westbrook is. when that doesn't work for a different aregument, suddenly he's far too valuable.

[Mephistopheles]

Looking at one factor for parks is stupid. It's naive to think that a park affects each pitcher the same.

[Guest]

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

 

I don't but I have trouble with peolpe on message boards who think that the Cubs can go out and find a better deal on the open market right now for a # 3 or 4 in your rotation. Funny though Tim how I have seen quite a few posts with you questioning how smart Hendry is but then go silent when guys like Cruz, Choi, and a host of other Cubs prospects fail badly.

I'm not sure I'm seeing how this relates to the discussion at hand.

 

But if you want me to admit that some of Hendry's decisions that I criticized worked out okay, then sure. Some of them that I criticized also failed miserably.

 

btw - I've been a lot more balanced on Hendry than many here.

Edited November 18, 2006 by Tim

[Guest]

br just has a "favors hitter/favors pitchers" metric centered on 100. Jake is at 97, Stl at 98, both slightly favored pitchers last year.

 

no, 26 and 19 isn't THAT different. however 53 (19,19,15) and 90 are vastly different. especially since those 53 came in about 35 more innings.

Fair enough. Marquis definitely had a trend in a bad direction for a couple years there. No doubt.

 

I respect your theories, but don't necessarily agree (pretty much through with power pitchers that can't throw strikes), but that's not what I am discussing. nor am I arguing for Westbrook because I don't want Westbrook. but even with your qualification, you seem to be going to the farthest neather regions of baseball rationalization to state the case that Marquis is a better choice for the Cubs situation. he's not.

Fundamentally, what I'm saying is that I'd rather have someone like Marquis and Murton than Westbrook and another hole to fill in the OF. If given a straight up choice of Westbrook and Marquis with no other costs involved, it's a no-brainer whom I would choose.

[Guest]

Again, I'll believe we get Westbrook for Eyre when I see it. That rumor is totally out of whack with the reality of the market. If Eyre is all it takes, I'm all over the trade. But I can't see Shapriro settling for Eyre if Westbrook is really that valuable.

 

you seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. half this thread is you areguing how poor Westbrook is. when that doesn't work for a different aregument, suddenly he's far too valuable.

No, actually I'm trying to point out that people who say Westbrook is a really good pitcher and that we can get him for leftover toast seem to have really unrealistic expectations.

[cheapseats]

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.

 

To be fair, Cleveland was incredibly unlucky last year. Pythagororean had them at 88 wins instead of 78.

 

That doesn't mean Hollandsworth et al were good ideas, though.

[Soriano12]

My MVP Baseball 2006 had Cleveland at 92 wins.

 

I guess thats why they play the games.

[jjgman21]

Again, I'll believe we get Westbrook for Eyre when I see it. That rumor is totally out of whack with the reality of the market. If Eyre is all it takes, I'm all over the trade. But I can't see Shapriro settling for Eyre if Westbrook is really that valuable.

 

you seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. half this thread is you areguing how poor Westbrook is. when that doesn't work for a different aregument, suddenly he's far too valuable.

No, actually I'm trying to point out that people who say Westbrook is a really good pitcher and that we can get him for leftover toast seem to have really unrealistic expectations.

 

I don't know that anybody was saying either of those things tough. maybe early on there were Westbrook advocates, but this morphed into Marquis v. Westbrook. as for the second part, Scott Eyre is the opitome of what gooney says doesn't exist, a predictably good relief pitcher, and the Indians desperately need bullpen, so he's not leftover toast to them, nor is Murton (a way overpay for Westbrook) leftover toast.

[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.

 

To be fair, Cleveland was incredibly unlucky last year. Pythagororean had them at 88 wins instead of 78.

 

That doesn't mean Hollandsworth et al were good ideas, though.

 

Pythagoreum had the 04 Cubs at 94 wins. the Cubs fell four short in Pythagoreum last year.

 

what was somebody saying about stupid to use one metric? how about these for a crtique on Shapiro. Saves/Holds/Blown Saves. alot of Clevelands success in 05 was their bullpen, and Shapiro either let it go or traded it away without finding suitable replacements. and the bullpen is where they lost all those games they should have one that aren't accounted for in Pythagoreum.

 

that's purely on Shapiro. that's not a situation where you are stuck with 17M in starting pitchers and a 12M first baseman (or a 10M shortstop) who can't take the field .

 

I'm not saying that Shapiro is stupid. my point comes back to the point you raise, fairness. Hendry's done some stupid, stupid transactions, but if people were up for being fair around here, we wouldn't hear "look how bad they were with a 100M payroll," rather we would hear more "they have 65M in roll players and none of their studs and little can be done to get out of that situation accept wait until its over."

 

although now that its almost over, I'm more angry with the past three transactions than I have ever been.

[jmajew]

Let me pose this: Who would you prefer Tim Hudson or Jake Westbrook?

[Uber]

Let me pose this: Who would you prefer Tim Hudson or Jake Westbrook?

 

Tim Hudson.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Let me pose this: Who would you prefer Tim Hudson or Jake Westbrook?

 

ARod and JD Drew.

[Guest]

Let me pose this: Who would you prefer Tim Hudson or Jake Westbrook?

Are you assuming it takes the same players to acquire each guy?

[jmajew]

Let me pose this: Who would you prefer Tim Hudson or Jake Westbrook?

Are you assuming it takes the same players to acquire each guy?

 

Yeah I think the two deals would be pretty similar. Maybe not the exact same players because both of those teams have different needs but all the players will prolly be of teh same quality. Maybe for Hudson: Jones and Marshall.

[rjchapma]

You think Westbrook and Hudson are on the same level. We need to be realistic why would they want itzturis or jones they dont need them at all they wont help out there team.

[nilodnayr]

I think the whole reason everyone is so excited about the proposition of trading for Westbrook is that no one thinks it would cost a significant player like Murton. No, Shapiro is not dumb. However, in this offseason relief pitching is becoming ridiculously expensive. Shapiros job may depend on how the Indians bullpen holds up next year since he cleaned it out last year. If he was smart he probably wouldn't tinker with it much because we all know that on paper that bullpen should be good enough and year to year success is unpredictable. However, if he is risk adverse, he would do something to try to solve the problem. It may not end up working, but at least it would be an effort. Westbrook is going to be a FA, so Shapiro might as well get something for him now.

 

We all thought Hendry was crazy for overpaying for relief pitching last offseason and that definitely bore itself out on the field as it doesnt really matter how good your bullpen is when you are usually losing when the starting pitcher leaves. But, maybe he was crazy like a fox because the relief pitching market has just exploded this offseason. In a market where Jaime Walker can get 12M and you absoutely have to upgrade the pen, it may not be fair to call Shapiro stupid for trading Westbrook for relief pitching.