Trot Nixon

[CubinNY]

I don't really care about "signs" of weakness. That's meaningless. There are no opportunity cost problems. A platoon can be fantastic if you have people on board. It's the managers job to get guys to agree to such a scenario.

 

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year?

 

The opportunity costs:

 

The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better

 

You have one less player to use on your bench

 

How do you propose to get "people on board"?

 

Assuming the guy is good enough to be worth platooning, odds are you aren't going to be finding many better bench players. With people like Nixon, who hasn't been a full-time player in several years, it should be pretty easy to convince him to participate in such a situation. Guys like Jones, who play most games but stink against one type of pitcher would probably put up a fight. But that's what managers are for, to do what's best for the team.

 

You don't have one less player to use on your bench. It's not like the guy who is not starting that day is ineligible to play. The first couple times through the lineup he's going to be facing the same pitcher, and you don't even have to think about pinch hitting. In many games I wouldn't even sub-in the platoon if they bring in a new pitcher. It doesn't have to be, and really, it can never be, a 100% strict platoon. But it doesn't have to be much of a problem either.

 

I understand. I think it is a philosophical disagreement about personnel use. I can see a platoon if you have an iexpensive player on the short end of the platoon situation or if you are small market team, or even in the AL. My belief is that if the Cubs need to platoon Jones then they have a problem. However, in the case of Nixon he would platooning with Murton and not Jones.

 

I'm not against getting Nixon for a 4th OFer and the first guy off the bench, depending on how much he'd cost.

[jjgman21]

I don't really care about "signs" of weakness. That's meaningless. There are no opportunity cost problems. A platoon can be fantastic if you have people on board. It's the managers job to get guys to agree to such a scenario.

 

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year?

 

The opportunity costs:

 

The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better

 

You have one less player to use on your bench

 

How do you propose to get "people on board"?

 

why do you assume that two platoon players will be paid the same as two full time players? chances are that a given level of production costs the same whether it takes two or one players.

 

re: the bench, it's not like you go with 24 players because you are platooning. you still have a guy capable of playing at least part time as a starter.

 

and again with the getting people on board stuff. who cares, as long as they perform.

Edited December 2, 2006 by jjgman21

[jjgman21]

 

I understand. I think it is a philosophical disagreement about personnel use. I can see a platoon if you have an iexpensive player on the short end of the platoon situation or if you are small market team, or even in the AL. My belief is that if the Cubs need to platoon Jones then they have a problem. However, in the case of Nixon he would platooning with Murton and not Jones.

 

I'm not against getting Nixon for a 4th OFer and the first guy off the bench, depending on how much he'd cost.

 

if your point centers on strictly a platoon of Murton and Nixon, I don't disagree and can see the opportunity costs. if your discussing a platoon of Jones and say Craig Wilson, I think your argument about platoons loses all validity.

[nilodnayr]

My belief is that if the Cubs need to platoon Jones then they have a problem

 

They do and they do

[CubinNY]

why do you assume that two platoon players will be paid the same as two full time players? chances are that a given level of production costs the same whether it takes two or three players.

 

re: the bench, it's not like you go with 24 players because you are platooning. you still have a guy capable of playing at least part time as a starter.

 

and again with the getting people on board stuff. who cares, as long as they perform.

 

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less.

 

Last year Nixon made $7.5

JJ makes $6 million

Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million

Edited December 2, 2006 by CubinNY

[jjgman21]

My belief is that if the Cubs need to platoon Jones then they have a problem

 

They do and they do

 

they should and if they do, are really fricken good (depending on who gets the platoon time)

[abuck1220]

why do you assume that two platoon players will be paid the same as two full time players? chances are that a given level of production costs the same whether it takes two or three players.

 

re: the bench, it's not like you go with 24 players because you are platooning. you still have a guy capable of playing at least part time as a starter.

 

and again with the getting people on board stuff. who cares, as long as they perform.

 

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less.

 

Last year Nixon made $7.5

JJ makes $6 million

Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million

 

you're making it sound like the guy not starting that day doesn't get to dress for the game.

[CubinNY]

why do you assume that two platoon players will be paid the same as two full time players? chances are that a given level of production costs the same whether it takes two or three players.

 

re: the bench, it's not like you go with 24 players because you are platooning. you still have a guy capable of playing at least part time as a starter.

 

and again with the getting people on board stuff. who cares, as long as they perform.

 

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less.

 

Last year Nixon made $7.5

JJ makes $6 million

Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million

 

you're making it sound like the guy not starting that day doesn't get to dress for the game.

 

He might as well not dress if he isn't valuable. There are many games when I wish Neifi didn't dress.

 

Suppose you have the guy on the bench who cannot hit righties. The other team puts in a lefty pitcher. The guy gets up and they take out the lefty.

[jjgman21]

why do you assume that two platoon players will be paid the same as two full time players? chances are that a given level of production costs the same whether it takes two or three players.

 

re: the bench, it's not like you go with 24 players because you are platooning. you still have a guy capable of playing at least part time as a starter.

 

and again with the getting people on board stuff. who cares, as long as they perform.

 

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less.

 

Last year Nixon made $7.5

JJ makes $6 million

Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million

 

I think you just made my point. 10M/year gets rightfield production that is likely in the top 5 of all of baseball

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=9&seasonType=2&type=type1&sort=OPS&split=85&season=2006

 

it also gives you a masher waiting to pinch hit for Izturis or Blanco in the late innings of a close game, as opposed to Angel Pagan. please don't lose track of the fact that baseball is played three outs per inning, nine innings per game. while it is useful to evaluate players based on their career because of sample size, a deep bench is valuable 100% of the time the game is close.

 

seems pretty damn efficient to me.

[abuck1220]

why do you assume that two platoon players will be paid the same as two full time players? chances are that a given level of production costs the same whether it takes two or three players.

 

re: the bench, it's not like you go with 24 players because you are platooning. you still have a guy capable of playing at least part time as a starter.

 

and again with the getting people on board stuff. who cares, as long as they perform.

 

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less.

 

Last year Nixon made $7.5

JJ makes $6 million

Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million

 

you're making it sound like the guy not starting that day doesn't get to dress for the game.

 

He might as well not dress if he isn't valuable. There are many games when I wish Neifi didn't dress.

 

Suppose you have the guy on the bench who cannot hit righties. The other team puts in a lefty pitcher. The guy gets up and they take out the lefty.

 

yeah, that happens all the time regardless of who the bench player is. i don't get your point.

[jjgman21]

He might as well not dress if he isn't valuable. There are many games when I wish Neifi didn't dress.

 

Suppose you have the guy on the bench who cannot hit righties. The other team puts in a lefty pitcher. The guy gets up and they take out the lefty.

 

so then you put in Pagan? give me Craig Wilson against a righty in that situation over Pagan v. either a righty or lefty every single time.

 

if not a platoon player, where exactly do you expect to get production from the bench without spending money? guys who hit righties and lefties well do not sit on the bench in the major leagues.

[CuseCubFan69]

Nixons back problems bug me. Unless he would except a 4th OF type deal I don't think he would be worth the gamble.

[UK1679666180]

I'm not a big advocate of the 11-man pitching staff.

 

Miller, Prior, Wood will all have guaranteed contracts. If they are really hurt, you can get them off the roster for rehab/DL. But often when you have these post-injury guys, they are on the staff but not giving you tons of innings. You know, maybe wood is on roster, but isn't allowed to be used in back-to-back days. Or, Miller is on roster but doesn't pitch well enough to win rotation spot. Maybe in relief he can't pitch back-to-back days, or maybe he's in the pen but so lousy that the manager doesn't actually want to use him, but his contract prevents Hendry from releasing him. Or, Prior sooner or later does come up for his usual try-to-make-comeback deal, but he's on 80-pitch count at first and he's only good for 3-4 innings. Or, Miller is the #5 starter, but he's so wild and has to nibble around so much with his curveball that he's basically a 5-inning pitcher. Or, Cubs do end up snagging Lilly, who has usually averaged less than 6 innings. Or, maybe Mateo or Marmol or Marshall end up getting the #5 spot; none except maybe Marshall have given indications that they'd be likely to rack up innings quickly and work deep.

 

Point is: I think the rotation may work out great, but there are a variety of scenarios in which guys often shouldn't be going even 6 innings. (And, if they do they may be getting hit pretty hard and losing their stuff in that 6th inning...)

 

If the pen averages 3.5 innings per game, that sums to almost 600 innings for the year. If they average 3 innings per game, that's still almost 500 innings for the year.

 

If you have a 6-man pen, do you want all your relievers needing to eat 80-100 innings each? That's a lot of innings for some relievers. *Especially for a guy whose arm needs special care (Wood, and perhaps Miller).

*And, especially for a guy who may be used primarily as situational loogy (Ohman, perhaps Cotts, even though I'm not sure his splits demand anysuch usage.)

*Especially for a closer, who may be used almost only in one-inning stretches. (I don't expect the closers to score 80 saves this year...)

 

So, if you've got only 6 relievers, and you need them to cover 480 innings (3 inniings per game), then if several of them don't take 80 innings, that's all the more that the workhorse guys (Howry, Eyre, Wuertz) might get stuck with. In which case they might well be fried by September.

 

I think carrying a 7th reliever makes a lot of sense. That way somebody whose arm is tired can get a break. That way the manager isn't constantly tempted to extend Z to 125 pitches to get him through the 7th or maybe even the 8th, in order to protect the tired bullpen. That way you aren't tempted to try to squeeze another inning out of rehabbing Prior. Or Hill. Or a tiring-and-losing-his-effectiveness Lilly or Miller, etc..

 

And, if things go well, you might be roster squeezed to carry only an 11-man staff. What if it so happened that Miller was healthy enough to be on the roster? And, what if one of Wood or Prior was actually on the active roster, much less both? I know it's unlikely, but imagine a situation where Prior, Miller, and Wood were *all* active simultaneously. Wood and Miller could make the 11th and 12th pitchers on the staff and Wuertz the #13 man shipped to Iowa.

[/i]

 

Great post Craig.

 

In an ideal world a 14/11 split works best in the NL. But, you're correct that the health concerns are too great as well an overall lack of lower pitches per IP from much of the staff (Z, Hill, and hopefully Prior) w/fears of burning out the staff.

 

That just puts a greater emphasis and likely cost on getting more production out of the bench while addressing the needs of having players being able to play mult. positions. The Cubs have done well in getting those types of players that can play mult. spots, but their overall offensive production has been severely lacking, which is where the change needs to occur.

[nilodnayr]

Plus a 6 man pen means Wuertz would be the odd man out, which would be a travesty.

[CoolHandLuke]

Plus a 6 man pen means Wuertz would be the odd man out, which would be a travesty.

 

Assuming nobody is traded that might be true. I would like to think that the numbers he put up at the end of the year would solidify his place in the pen.

[CubFanPhilly]

Plus a 6 man pen means Wuertz would be the odd man out, which would be a travesty.

 

Wuertz is out of options as well, isn't he? I doubt Hendry goes into the season with the bullpen constructed as-is.

 

Dempster

Wood

Howry

Eyre

Ohman

Cotts

Wuertz

 

Even if Wood starts the season on the DL, there's not much flexibility because no one in that group has options. The Cubs have a few young candidates for the seventh spot in the pen.

 

I'd put significant money on at least one of these guys being dealt.

[Illini Iceman]

Plus a 6 man pen means Wuertz would be the odd man out, which would be a travesty.

 

Wuertz is out of options as well, isn't he? I doubt Hendry goes into the season with the bullpen constructed as-is.

 

Dempster

Wood

Howry

Eyre

Ohman

Cotts

Wuertz

 

Even if Wood starts the season on the DL, there's not much flexibility because no one in that group has options. The Cubs have a few young candidates for the seventh spot in the pen.

 

I'd put significant money on at least one of these guys being dealt.

 

Not to mention the fact that Miller is also in play if he does not claim the 5th starter spot.

[cjbucks]

Plus a 6 man pen means Wuertz would be the odd man out, which would be a travesty.

 

Wuertz is out of options as well, isn't he? I doubt Hendry goes into the season with the bullpen constructed as-is.

 

Dempster

Wood

Howry

Eyre

Ohman

Cotts

Wuertz

 

Even if Wood starts the season on the DL, there's not much flexibility because no one in that group has options. The Cubs have a few young candidates for the seventh spot in the pen.

 

I'd put significant money on at least one of these guys being dealt.

 

Isn't Cotts going to be tried as a starter?