ESPN Article calls Cubs Mediocre

[UMFan83]

They may have arrived at the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons.

 

There's a chance the Cubs hover around the .500 mark, but IMO it would fall more on that pitching staff than the position players. Maybe I'm wrong. But if Lilly & Marquis stay true to form that's not real encouraging. Throw in Hill -- if he doesn't break out like we obviously need him to, that leaves Zambrano and Prior.......and little else. Sure the bullpen looks to be improved, but a weak starting staff has got to cost games. I think that's the whole crux of the season, not the ARam & Soriano signings.

 

This article says nothing about the pitching, instead taking shots at two position players who will likely be pretty productive in any event.

 

I agree completely. Plus with the low OBP/high power on the team, the offense could very well resemble the feast or famine offenses of 2004-2005

[goonys evil twin]

This article isn't even about the cubs. Its about the Free agent market and that trying to build a team purely on free agent signings is only going to give you a mediocre team that costs a lot.

 

I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. It's a Page 2 article, poking fun at the GMs that through money around for all sorts of guys this offseason. It's not about the Cubs.

[Soul]

This article isn't even about the cubs. Its about the Free agent market and that trying to build a team purely on free agent signings is only going to give you a mediocre team that costs a lot.

 

I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. It's a Page 2 article, poking fun at the GMs that through money around for all sorts of guys this offseason. It's not about the Cubs.

 

It's the comment that closes the article, which specifically calls out the Cubs.

[CubinNY]

Holy crap, the Yankees are paying Andy Pettitte $16 million this year.

 

Now that is a bad contract.

[BigbadB]

Holy crap, the Yankees are paying Andy Pettitte $16 million this year.

 

Now that is a bad contract.

 

Shhhhh. The Yankees are innocent of driving up market prices.

[hardcorecubfan]

other than ARam assessment the other two are dead on.

[illiniguy]

So was Jeter his Shorstop? I am too lazy to read it. I mean his numbers pail in comparison to Tejada and Michael Young, yet he makes more. Or does this article also take into account clutchness and diving into a stand once?

[Danny82]

So was Jeter his Shorstop? I am too lazy to read it. I mean his numbers pail in comparison to Tejada and Michael Young, yet he makes more. Or does this article also take into account clutchness and diving into a stand once?

 

His numbers "pail in comparison to Tejada and Michael Young", yet he had a higher OPS than both of them last year?

[goonys evil twin]

So was Jeter his Shorstop? I am too lazy to read it. I mean his numbers pail in comparison to Tejada and Michael Young, yet he makes more. Or does this article also take into account clutchness and diving into a stand once?

 

The whole premise is based upon guys who signed huge contracts this offseason.

[CoolHandLuke]

It was only based on free agents that could have been signed this offseason. Jeter wasn't eligible.

[Rob]

Holy crap, the Yankees are paying Andy Pettitte $16 million this year.

 

Now that is a bad contract.

 

Not really.

 

It's a one year deal, and Pettitte got his home run rate back in check in the second half, allowing him to post a 2.80 ERA.

 

I'd rather have that deal than the Lilly or Marquis deal. There's almost no chance Lilly or Marquis earns their keep over the next few years, but there's a significantly higher chance that Pettitte can do it for next year only. If it would have worked out, fantastic... if it didn't, he wouldn't be blocking Guzman, Veal, or Gallagher in 2008.

[TruffleShuffle]

Holy crap, the Yankees are paying Andy Pettitte $16 million this year.

 

Now that is a bad contract.

 

Not really.

 

It's a one year deal, and Pettitte got his home run rate back in check in the second half, allowing him to post a 2.80 ERA.

 

I'd rather have that deal than the Lilly or Marquis deal. There's almost no chance Lilly or Marquis earns their keep over the next few years, but there's a significantly higher chance that Pettitte can do it for next year only. If it would have worked out, fantastic... if it didn't, he wouldn't be blocking Guzman, Veal, or Gallagher in 2008.

 

I wouldn't... Pettitte is only about 15% better than the average pitcher over the course of his career. Is that worth $16M? I sure don't think so.

[Rob]

Holy crap, the Yankees are paying Andy Pettitte $16 million this year.

 

Now that is a bad contract.

 

Not really.

 

It's a one year deal, and Pettitte got his home run rate back in check in the second half, allowing him to post a 2.80 ERA.

 

I'd rather have that deal than the Lilly or Marquis deal. There's almost no chance Lilly or Marquis earns their keep over the next few years, but there's a significantly higher chance that Pettitte can do it for next year only. If it would have worked out, fantastic... if it didn't, he wouldn't be blocking Guzman, Veal, or Gallagher in 2008.

 

I wouldn't... Pettitte is only about 15% better than the average pitcher over the course of his career. Is that worth $16M? I sure don't think so.

 

You'd rather have Lilly for 4 years and 40 mil, when he's never been anything special, or Marquis for 3 years and 21 million fresh off an ERA over 6?

 

Both of those guys have a pretty high chance to implode and become impossible to move. At least with Pettitte you retain roster flexibility and don't block your best prospects.

[TruffleShuffle]

Both of those guys have a pretty high chance to implode and become impossible to move. At least with Pettitte you retain roster flexibility and don't block your best prospects.

 

Marquis is a high chance to implode... Lilly has been somewhat consistent and I think you sort of know waht you're getting from him at this point in his career.

 

But the argument is moot because Chicago was never an option for Pettitte.

[TruffleShuffle]

by the way, let's not forget that mediocre would actually be an improvement over last year

[CubinNY]

Holy crap, the Yankees are paying Andy Pettitte $16 million this year.

 

Now that is a bad contract.

 

Not really.

 

It's a one year deal, and Pettitte got his home run rate back in check in the second half, allowing him to post a 2.80 ERA.

 

I'd rather have that deal than the Lilly or Marquis deal. There's almost no chance Lilly or Marquis earns their keep over the next few years, but there's a significantly higher chance that Pettitte can do it for next year only. If it would have worked out, fantastic... if it didn't, he wouldn't be blocking Guzman, Veal, or Gallagher in 2008.

 

I wouldn't... Pettitte is only about 15% better than the average pitcher over the course of his career. Is that worth $16M? I sure don't think so.

 

You'd rather have Lilly for 4 years and 40 mil, when he's never been anything special, or Marquis for 3 years and 21 million fresh off an ERA over 6?

 

Both of those guys have a pretty high chance to implode and become impossible to move. At least with Pettitte you retain roster flexibility and don't block your best prospects.

 

It's not about who I would rather have. Lilly and Marquis are not part of the equation.

 

Pettitte is right around a league average pitcher, and he's paid like a superstar

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=840&position=P&page=0&type=full

[Mephistopheles]

He's right around league average because of this?

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/840_P_season_full_0_20061001.png

 

Three things of note:

 

1.) Pettitte has been lower than the average MLB ERA every season except for one.

2.) That's the MLB average - meaning all that time he spent in New York against DH's and facing good lineups with regularity are NOT accounted for.

3.) That's the MLB average - meaning it's NOT the average ERA for a starting pitcher in the league which is probably another quarter of a run higher.

 

 

All of those three remove the "right around league average" label completely. I mean after all he has a 119 ERA+ which still doesn't make the SP adjustment. He may not be a top 10 pitcher but to belittle him to average status is unjust.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'd rather have Derek Lowe than Andy Pettitte.

[Mephistopheles]

You go ahead and do that. Keep in mind that's he's allowed 61 unearned runs the last three seasons.

[CubinNY]

He's right around league average because of this?

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/840_P_season_full_0_20061001.png

 

Three things of note:

 

1.) Pettitte has been lower than the average MLB ERA every season except for one.

2.) That's the MLB average - meaning all that time he spent in New York against DH's and facing good lineups with regularity are NOT accounted for.

3.) That's the MLB average - meaning it's NOT the average ERA for a starting pitcher in the league which is probably another quarter of a run higher.

 

 

All of those three remove the "right around league average" label completely. I mean after all he has a 119 ERA+ which still doesn't make the SP adjustment. He may not be a top 10 pitcher but to belittle him to average status is unjust.

 

It's not just ERA+ that goes into the equation. Check out his other graphs. He's right around league average and has been for a couple of years now. Yet, he's compensated quite well.

 

Here is a compairson to Maddux

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=840&playerid2=104&playerid3=&position=P&page=0&type=full

[TruffleShuffle]

You go ahead and do that. Keep in mind that's he's allowed 61 unearned runs the last three seasons.

 

Nearly half of which came in 2004. He allowed 9 last year - 5 less than Pettitte. He's got a better career ERA+, WHIP, is a year younger, and is less of an injury risk. Why would I want Pettitte over Lowe? Because of his extremely lucky 2005 season?

[Mephistopheles]

he also spent nearly half of his career in the bullpen where he compiled an ERA+ well over 150. Pettitte has slight advantages in DERA and NRA, and a significant higher stuff score. The last three seasons Pettitte's FIPs have been 3.34, 3.03 and 4.08. Lowe's have been 4.33, 4.10, and 3.72.

 

In a nuetral setting with health assured it's Pettitte without a question. Of course Pettitte's a greater risk and Lowe gets ground balls at a very good rate which is good in Chicago - although Pettitte is no slouch in the groundball department either.

[Mephistopheles]

He's right around league average because of this?

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/840_P_season_full_0_20061001.png

 

Three things of note:

 

1.) Pettitte has been lower than the average MLB ERA every season except for one.

2.) That's the MLB average - meaning all that time he spent in New York against DH's and facing good lineups with regularity are NOT accounted for.

3.) That's the MLB average - meaning it's NOT the average ERA for a starting pitcher in the league which is probably another quarter of a run higher.

 

 

All of those three remove the "right around league average" label completely. I mean after all he has a 119 ERA+ which still doesn't make the SP adjustment. He may not be a top 10 pitcher but to belittle him to average status is unjust.

 

It's not just ERA+ that goes into the equation. Check out his other graphs. He's right around league average and has been for a couple of years now. Yet, he's compensated quite well.

 

Here is a compairson to Maddux

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=840&playerid2=104&playerid3=&position=P&page=0&type=full

 

You are making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES again.

[CubinNY]

He's right around league average because of this?

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/840_P_season_full_0_20061001.png

 

Three things of note:

 

1.) Pettitte has been lower than the average MLB ERA every season except for one.

2.) That's the MLB average - meaning all that time he spent in New York against DH's and facing good lineups with regularity are NOT accounted for.

3.) That's the MLB average - meaning it's NOT the average ERA for a starting pitcher in the league which is probably another quarter of a run higher.

 

 

All of those three remove the "right around league average" label completely. I mean after all he has a 119 ERA+ which still doesn't make the SP adjustment. He may not be a top 10 pitcher but to belittle him to average status is unjust.

 

It's not just ERA+ that goes into the equation. Check out his other graphs. He's right around league average and has been for a couple of years now. Yet, he's compensated quite well.

 

Here is a compairson to Maddux

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=840&playerid2=104&playerid3=&position=P&page=0&type=full

 

You are making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES again.

 

WHAT MISTAKE IS THAT?

 

I don't give a flip about Pettitte's career numbers, I only care about the trends. He's been a little better than league average for quite a while and has been injured to boot. He's not the same guy he was in 96 and he's getting paid like he is.

[Mephistopheles]

read again

 

 

1.) Pettitte has been lower than the average MLB ERA every season except for one.

2.) That's the MLB average - meaning all that time he spent in New York against DH's and facing good lineups with regularity are NOT accounted for.

3.) That's the MLB average - meaning it's NOT the average ERA for a starting pitcher in the league which is probably another quarter of a run higher.