Hardball Times article on slotting starters

[TruffleShuffle]

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.

 

Again, what exactly do you expect them to do? They went 66-96 last year. It's pretty damn hard to have a team that bad and improve by 18 wins the next year. I know that your credentials are impeccible - after all, you do post on an internet message board - but I think even you'd have a hard time winning 90 games this year without completely mortgaging the future.

 

And, I think your assertion that the Cubs don't want to be better than average is idiotic. Teams don't spend $110M with the intention of being and staying average. You might not agree with how they're going about building a team, but to suggest that the decision-makers on this team are striving for mediocrity is absurd.

[CubsWin]

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'm not saying we should pencil Prior into the 2 slot in the rotation and expect 18 wins, but from where are you getting your information? When did they find more problems with his shoulder? He definitely won't be ready by ST?

 

His status isn't known because he is still rehabbing, but we do know that he has been doing strengthening exercises in San Diego this off season and expects to test his shoulder sometime in January. Its not certain either way if he'll be ready by spring, but judging by Rothschild's quotes below, Prior is working hard to be ready to go by spring.

 

ChicagoSports.com[/url]"]"I talked to him quite a bit before Christmas," Rothschild said. "In his mind, and in the trainer's mind, he would like to know sometime before spring training where he is [physically].

 

"He doesn't want to have the feeling he is letting people down like last year. I don't think he wants to go to spring training and have anything hanging over his head."

 

Prior has yet to let loose from a mound, though he has been throwing lightly. But he will test his right shoulder this month.

[XZero771679666304]

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.

 

Striving for mediocrity implies intent. Clearly, the Cubs are not spending all these millions with the intent of being average. You can call their methodology lousy, and their philosophy garbage and their GM deluded, but to say they are "striving" to be average is just wrong.

 

Because Hendry did his job so poorly over the past couple years, he put himself in the position of having a ton to spend with nothing to spend it on, while fighting for his job. Soriano is overrated and now overpaid, but he was the best position player on the market. By all accounts Schmidt wasn't going to leave the coast for anyone. Zito isn't worth a fraction of his contract.

 

There really wasn't a lot Hendry could do that he didn't. With the premium put on pitching this offseason, you better believe a legit #2 and #3 would have cost the Cubs Pie, Veal, Pawalek, Gallagher and more. But of course, Jim helped put himself in this position. I just think it's sad that the Trib finally opened the vault when the store shelves were nearly bare.

[UK1679666180]

I think it's fair to question their methods and not their intent, I believe they want to win 100+ every year within their large budget. The only time it sounds like they're content with '03 and '04 was after '05 and '06. You can't get an accurate gauge of one's intentions through the media.

 

I don't know Hendry and most of his staff, but I think it's fair to say he's trying to win as many as possible and a WS.

[Shilzzz]

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.

 

i'm not saying you aren't, but i'm a cubs fan. never ever say at worst. ever.

[MPrior]

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.

 

Striving for mediocrity implies intent. Clearly, the Cubs are not spending all these millions with the intent of being average. You can call their methodology lousy, and their philosophy garbage and their GM deluded, but to say they are "striving" to be average is just wrong.

 

Because Hendry did his job so poorly over the past couple years, he put himself in the position of having a ton to spend with nothing to spend it on, while fighting for his job. Soriano is overrated and now overpaid, but he was the best position player on the market. By all accounts Schmidt wasn't going to leave the coast for anyone. Zito isn't worth a fraction of his contract.

 

There really wasn't a lot Hendry could do that he didn't. With the premium put on pitching this offseason, you better believe a legit #2 and #3 would have cost the Cubs Pie, Veal, Pawalek, Gallagher and more. But of course, Jim helped put himself in this position. I just think it's sad that the Trib finally opened the vault when the store shelves were nearly bare.

 

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that everyone's arguing semantics here. Basically I see a bunch of people saying the same thing, but arguing over it.

 

Is it fair to say that what they are striving toward is averageness, regardless of what they believe it actually is?

[nilodnayr]

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.

 

The only problem is that the going rate for a 4.8 ERA pitcher is 11M.

 

NOTE: Except Tomo Ohka

[CarolinaCubFan]

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]

 

Is there a way to see the offensive side of this? Like what type of run support do pitchers recieve on average?