Hardball Times article on slotting starters

[TruffleShuffle]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-good-is-your-4-starter/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/more-fun-with-rotation-numbers/

 

Pretty interesting:

 

Lg      #1      #2      #3      #4      #5
MLB     3.60    4.14    4.58    5.10    6.24
AL      3.70    4.24    4.58    5.09    6.22
NL      3.51    4.04    4.57    5.11    6.26

 

CHN     3.33    4.25    5.02    5.78    7.40

 

 

Now this does include all MLB teams, not just contenders - but it does suggest that the generalizations of Lilly as a #4 starter at best are absurd - he's better than the average #4 starter and far, far better than the turds the Cubs rolled out to the mount to pose as their #4 starter last year.

 

In fact, from the second article, here is the same data, but for the top half of all pitching staffs:

 

Lg      #1      #2      #3      #4      #5
MLB     3.30    3.83    4.30    4.87    5.94
AL      3.27    3.81    4.26    4.84    5.76
NL      3.32    3.85    4.33    4.88    6.09

 

 

So, Hill would have to improve a little over his entire 2006 to be an average #2 on a good team, and Lilly probably projects as a #3/4 on a good team.[/code]

[rawaction]

Just think how good Lilly would look if he was actually paid like a 4th starter.

 

That's why people like me wanted another top notch starter. It slots everyone lower and makes the rotation stronger. If you take last year's numbers, the Cubs still aren't any better compared to the rest of the league, especially when you consider Lilly a below average #3, Prior/Miller you hope can be a 3, but likely a 4 with the injury issues, Marquis was a legit #5 last year, if that. And that still has to include Hill staying around his 2nd half numbers.

[Guest]

Just think how good Lilly would look if he was actually paid like a 4th starter.

 

That's why people like me wanted another top notch starter. It slots everyone lower and makes the rotation stronger. If you take last year's numbers, the Cubs still aren't any better compared to the rest of the league, especially when you consider Lilly a below average #3, Prior/Miller you hope can be a 3, but likely a 4 with the injury issues, Marquis was a legit #5 last year, if that. And that still has to include Hill staying around his 2nd half numbers.

Think how good we'll be when Prior stays healthy all year and Guzman steps up, though! ;)

 

Seriously, this was very valuable analysis and shows what a tremendous advantage being deep in pitching can be. I'd love to see a similar analysis performed on bullpens. Is it better to allocated pen dollars on a stud & scrubs approach? Or a more balanced pen?

[TruffleShuffle]

Just think how good Lilly would look if he was actually paid like a 4th starter.

 

That's why people like me wanted another top notch starter. It slots everyone lower and makes the rotation stronger. If you take last year's numbers, the Cubs still aren't any better compared to the rest of the league, especially when you consider Lilly a below average #3, Prior/Miller you hope can be a 3, but likely a 4 with the injury issues, Marquis was a legit #5 last year, if that. And that still has to include Hill staying around his 2nd half numbers.

 

Is Lilly a below-average #3? Possibly - if he pitches like last year, he's an average #3 on a good team; if like 2002 and 2004, then he's pushing the level of a #2. If it's 2003 Lilly, then you're talking below-average #3, and 2005 Lilly is downright bad.

 

Anyhow, I'd love to have had another top-notch starter, but Zito at $18M per? Schmidt - maybe this wasn't even possible, but maybe having to dump $18-20M per on him to get him to leave the West Coast? Daisuke at what will turn out to be almost $21M per? That's a really heavy price to pay, especially if you want to keep Zambrano around next year.

[TruffleShuffle]

Seriously, this was very valuable analysis and shows what a tremendous advantage being deep in pitching can be.

 

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong.

[Guest]

Seriously, this was very valuable analysis and shows what a tremendous advantage being deep in pitching can be.

 

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong.

I remember strongly objecting to that statement when it was made. :D

[goonys evil twin]

Seriously, this was very valuable analysis and shows what a tremendous advantage being deep in pitching can be.

 

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong.

 

They wouldn't need everything to go wrong, and they wouldn't need anybody to be any worse than they have been in recent years.

 

I think the Cubs have locked up not being the worst rotation in baseball. The problem is, they aren't close to the best rotation in the NL, and without a top lineup either, they have nothing to hang their hat on. Without a great lineup or rotation, it's hard to be a great team.

 

I get pissed when a top payroll Cubs team strives for averageness.

[PrimeTime]

Remember, Lilly posted 15 wins on a team without alot of sticks..and he was playing the Yankees,Red Sox ETC in the AL...His ERA has to get lower this year playing in the NL..Otherwise consider it a failure..Im pretty confident with a transfer to the NL will do him good

[Backtobanks]

As many posters had written in the past, Prior's health is the key. If Prior gets back to his pre-injury form, the Cubs rotation will be one of the best in baseball. One reason is that it slots all of the pitchers to a place where they should be. The last few seasons, the Cubs had a #4 starter (Maddux) in the #2 slot. Putting Hill and Lilly in the 3rd and 4th slot (in either order) relieves them of the pressure of competing against another team's 2nd best starter. It isn't that much different from the roles in the bullpen. When you have your setup man pitching in the 5th inning it screws up everything.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-good-is-your-4-starter/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/more-fun-with-rotation-numbers/

 

Pretty interesting:

 

Lg      #1      #2      #3      #4      #5
MLB     3.60    4.14    4.58    5.10    6.24
AL      3.70    4.24    4.58    5.09    6.22
NL      3.51    4.04    4.57    5.11    6.26

 

CHN     3.33    4.25    5.02    5.78    7.40

 

 

Now this does include all MLB teams, not just contenders - but it does suggest that the generalizations of Lilly as a #4 starter at best are absurd - he's better than the average #4 starter and far, far better than the turds the Cubs rolled out to the mount to pose as their #4 starter last year.

 

In fact, from the second article, here is the same data, but for the top half of all pitching staffs:

 

Lg      #1      #2      #3      #4      #5
MLB     3.30    3.83    4.30    4.87    5.94
AL      3.27    3.81    4.26    4.84    5.76
NL      3.32    3.85    4.33    4.88    6.09

 

 

So, Hill would have to improve a little over his entire 2006 to be an average #2 on a good team, and Lilly probably projects as a #3/4 on a good team.[/code]

 

If Prior is healthy and effective, the Cubs could easily match those numbers. Zambrano was right there with the number one starters, Prior if he finds himself should be in the 3.85 range. I'm confident Lilly and Hill could post 4.33 and 4.85 ERA's and as bad as Marquis might be, 6.09 is right at his level.

 

The lynch pen, though, is Prior. If he stinks or if he can't pitch, then someone is really going to have to step it up.

[goonys evil twin]

Remember, Lilly posted 15 wins on a team without alot of sticks..and he was playing the Yankees,Red Sox ETC in the AL...His ERA has to get lower this year playing in the NL..Otherwise consider it a failure..Im pretty confident with a transfer to the NL will do him good

 

Toronto maybe lacked some big bats, but they were an average scoring team. Win totals are meaningless, but he didn't rack them up against NYY/BOS, he was 1-3 against BOS and 0-2 against the Yanks. He racked up 3 against BAL, and no more than 1 against any other team.

[A New Era]

Seriously, this was very valuable analysis and shows what a tremendous advantage being deep in pitching can be.

 

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong.

 

Well I have been saying that this whole time, and now this new article proves it. Even at WORST we don't have three #4's. And at BEST we've got a #2 and #3.

[goonys evil twin]

Seriously, this was very valuable analysis and shows what a tremendous advantage being deep in pitching can be.

 

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong.

 

Well I have been saying that this whole time, and now this new article proves it. Even at WORST we don't have three #4's. And at BEST we've got a #2 and #3.

 

This article doesn't prove anything. We could have any number of combinations next seasons. What we do know is we don't have a lockdown guaranteed #2. The rest we'll find out during the season. It's pitching, therefore it's unpredictable.

[A New Era]

Seriously, this was very valuable analysis and shows what a tremendous advantage being deep in pitching can be.

 

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong.

 

Well I have been saying that this whole time, and now this new article proves it. Even at WORST we don't have three #4's. And at BEST we've got a #2 and #3.

 

This article doesn't prove anything. We could have any number of combinations next seasons. What we do know is we don't have a lockdown guaranteed #2. The rest we'll find out during the season. It's pitching, therefore it's unpredictable.

 

Yes I agree. But I do say we've got quite alot of depth. And it's more likely than last year we have someone in there that can beat the average "#2" ERA. What happens if Marquis improves from his bad year? Well he's more like an average #4. So we might have a 1, two 3's, and two 4's. Who knows.

[TruffleShuffle]

Seriously, this was very valuable analysis and shows what a tremendous advantage being deep in pitching can be.

 

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong.

 

They wouldn't need everything to go wrong, and they wouldn't need anybody to be any worse than they have been in recent years.

 

I think the Cubs have locked up not being the worst rotation in baseball. The problem is, they aren't close to the best rotation in the NL, and without a top lineup either, they have nothing to hang their hat on. Without a great lineup or rotation, it's hard to be a great team.

 

I get pissed when a top payroll Cubs team strives for averageness.

 

Do you really think they're striving to be average? You seem focused on the idea that Hill could lose confidence in his fastball, Lilly could pitch like he did in 2005, Prior and Miller stay hurt and/or ineffective, and Marquis is just as bad as in 2006. Well then yeah, you've got a 1, three 4s and a 5. But what if Prior or Miller are close to where they once were, Lilly pitches like he did in 2002 or 2004, Marquis is close to where he was in 2004, and Hill pitches just like he did in the second half last year? Then you've got at least one #1, two #2s, and two #3s. What will happen almost certainly lies in between, but you seem dead set on the worst case scenario.

 

And do you really think the cubs are striving to be average? I don't. When you start from the bottom, which last year was, you can't just make a quantum leap to having a great team on paper. They could've signed Zito, Schmidt, Soriano, Drew and Carlos Lee and handcuffed the payroll for at least the next five years.

 

But without a good minor league system - and let's be honest, the Cubs sure don't have that - you lack the resources to trade for impact players, and you don't have a bunch of youngsters who will come up and make an impact next year (a la 2006 Florida Marlins). So the Cubs made the first few steps toward having a contending ballclub, which was to have a much more reliable rotation, to add one big bat, and then a couple of other players who at the very least take the place of some of the more inept players on last year's team.

[TruffleShuffle]

We could have any number of combinations next seasons. What we do know is we don't have a lockdown guaranteed #2. The rest we'll find out during the season. It's pitching, therefore it's unpredictable.

 

Way to totally contradict yourself in the span of there sentences.

[A New Era]

We could have any number of combinations next seasons. What we do know is we don't have a lockdown guaranteed #2. The rest we'll find out during the season. It's pitching, therefore it's unpredictable.

 

Way to totally contradict yourself in the span of there sentences.

 

Oh yeah, I didn't think about that. I missed it. Good points though. We could be stellear, we could be terrible. But we'll probably be somewhere in between. As the optomistic cubs fan, I cross my fingers that it will be just a little bit closer to stellar than disaster.

[10man]

I'm not really as concerned that we have one #1 and 4 #4's or something like that. what i think will benefit the cubs most is that we have people who will pitch a lot of innings and so keep our excellent bullpen fresh. the end result of that is that the cubs will be in contention in many ballgames in late innings and have a chance to rack up more wins.

[goonys evil twin]

We could have any number of combinations next seasons. What we do know is we don't have a lockdown guaranteed #2. The rest we'll find out during the season. It's pitching, therefore it's unpredictable.

 

Way to totally contradict yourself in the span of there sentences.

 

I didn't contradict myself. Pitching in general is completely unpredictable. There are, however, some guys who are steadily effective. The Cubs have one guy on their roster who fits that bill, Zambrano. Everybody else has either had an extremely up and down career, or is just starting out in the majors and cannot be counted on to any significant degree.

Edited January 4, 2007 by goony's evil twin

[goonys evil twin]

And do you really think the cubs are striving to be average? I don't.

 

Clearly they are. In their minds they might think they are striving for greatness, but to them, greatness is just getting to the playoffs. They thought they were great in 2003 and 2004, when they failed to win 90 games. Hendry has over a decade of "contend within the division" drilled into his head, and that's obviously what they have sought out to do. They see STL won it with 83 next year, and hope they can win 84 this year. Cubs leadership is simple minded, and they rely heavily on a fan base that goes gaga when the team is above average. Be above average two years in a row and the masses will genuflect in your honor.

 

Hendry was embarrassed by a 90 win team last year. His intentions were clearly to not be that bad again. He didn't want to have to rely on young pitchers that could be absolutely abysmal. So, he went out and acquired guys who stood a good chance at being average. If he wins 85 games next year, he'll probably be rewarded with a contract extension, barring a sale to an owner that wants to make a complete organizational overhaul. If he just gets them back to average, he'll be praised for building a team that contends within the division. And he stands a chance of getting the team's overall record under his leadership to .500 with 83 wins this year, back to their original goal of being average.

 

Their motivation is embarrasment for being the worst. They've shown no interest in being the best. They just want to be good enough to not stand out at the bottom of the barrel.

[craig]

Interesting data, thanks for the synopsis and for the links.

 

One thing that struck me was how bad the back-end performance is, even for the top-half teams.

 

It's common to focus on the front-end. But it's maybe easier to really separate yourself (for the good) at the back end. Easier to have a #5 pitcher who's +1.5 relative to league than to have a #2 who's +1.5 relative to league. League #5 is 6.3, so a 4.8 ERA #5 isn't that implausible, but would give you a +1.5. For your #2 to be +1.5, you'd need to have a sub-3 ERA, which isn't that realistic. Likewise it's easier to be half a run or more better than average #4 than to be half a run or more better than an average #1 or #2.

 

I hope that Prior or Hill shows up and outperforms the average #2 even for the top-half teams.

 

But if the rotation is going to end up significantly above average, I think it's more likely that we'll separate above the norm at the 4/5 spots than the 1/2 spots.

 

It's also a team game, of course. 25% of the NL teams go to the playoffs, but you don't necessarily need a top-quarter rotation. If your offense and relief are above average.

 

Barring a Prior breakout, or Hill or Guzman doing better than I expect, I don't expect an extraordinary rotation. Nor do I expect an amazing offense, or an incredible bullpen. But I think all three aspects have a chance to be somewhat above average.

[YearofDaCubs]

Guys, IMO there is just no way any of us should expect a healthy Prior. He hasn't pitched in who knows how long and they found even more problems with his shoulder from before. Nobody knows what his status is and it already has been said they he won't be ready by ST. We just can't count on this guy period.

[Derwood]

And do you really think the cubs are striving to be average? I don't.

 

Clearly they are. In their minds they might think they are striving for greatness, but to them, greatness is just getting to the playoffs. They thought they were great in 2003 and 2004, when they failed to win 90 games. Hendry has over a decade of "contend within the division" drilled into his head, and that's obviously what they have sought out to do. They see STL won it with 83 next year, and hope they can win 84 this year. Cubs leadership is simple minded, and they rely heavily on a fan base that goes gaga when the team is above average. Be above average two years in a row and the masses will genuflect in your honor.

 

Hendry was embarrassed by a 90 win team last year. His intentions were clearly to not be that bad again. He didn't want to have to rely on young pitchers that could be absolutely abysmal. So, he went out and acquired guys who stood a good chance at being average. If he wins 85 games next year, he'll probably be rewarded with a contract extension, barring a sale to an owner that wants to make a complete organizational overhaul. If he just gets them back to average, he'll be praised for building a team that contends within the division. And he stands a chance of getting the team's overall record under his leadership to .500 with 83 wins this year, back to their original goal of being average.

 

Their motivation is embarrasment for being the worst. They've shown no interest in being the best. They just want to be good enough to not stand out at the bottom of the barrel.

 

I think having by far the highest payroll in the division belies the idea of just striving for average. I won't argue that the personnel decisions have been questionable at times, but striving for average would probably also mean spending like Cincy or Milwaukee

[goonys evil twin]

I think having by far the highest payroll in the division belies the idea of just striving for average. I won't argue that the personnel decisions have been questionable at times, but striving for average would probably also mean spending like Cincy or Milwaukee

 

Like I said, in their minds it's probably something else. But in reality, what they are after is average. They think 88/89 win seasons are great. They think contending within the division is admirable. They think Soriano is a whole lot more than he is. What is average in reality appears to be gold in the eyes of the Cubs.

[craig]

Guys, IMO there is just no way any of us should expect a healthy Prior. He hasn't pitched in who knows how long and they found even more problems with his shoulder from before. Nobody knows what his status is and it already has been said they he won't be ready by ST. We just can't count on this guy period.

 

I agree. But we shouldn't go to the opposite extreme and consider it impossible that he *might* contribute.

 

Is it probable that Prior will be a contributor to a winning team this year? Absolutely not. But neither is it impossible.

 

If improbable things never happened, the Cardinals wouldn't have a 13th round draft pick annually among the MVP candidates, or rehabbed Chris Carpenter annually among the Cy candidates.

 

We shouldn't count on or expect anything from Prior. But we should at least keep in mind that it's at least possible that he might pitch productively again.

 

It's only two seasons ago that he made 27 starts and had a 3.67 ERA. Even last year, counting his minor league innings, he actually pitched over 60 innings. Obviously his results were lousy, since his velocity was still rebuilding over most of those innings and he never got his control.

 

Absolutely it isn't likely that he'll be fine and dandy this year. But, neither is it implausible that he might be relatively healthy enough to pitch a lot better than your average #5 starter.