Miller will be skipped

[Mizzou]

The last time Guzman had success at AA or higher was four years ago, in 2003. I can understand the reasoning for not wanting Miller in the rotation, but I don't understand the logic behind assuming that Guzman will be better when he hasn't done anything in the past several years.

 

That's not true. Guzman was very good last year at Iowa for 15 starts.

I'm not that impressed with an ERA over 4 in AAA. Decent, sure. Very good? Hardly.

[Mephistopheles]

you dont get it. guzmans ERA last year was a fluke. its common sense. it can be thrown out the door.

 

oh, NOW i see

what no ones saying he did well. he just didnt do as bad as his ERA indicated. His ERA should have been around five or so. Is Miller any better than that? probably not. guzman probably is.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The last time Guzman had success at AA or higher was four years ago, in 2003. I can understand the reasoning for not wanting Miller in the rotation, but I don't understand the logic behind assuming that Guzman will be better when he hasn't done anything in the past several years.

 

That's not true. Guzman was very good last year at Iowa for 15 starts.

I'm not that impressed with an ERA over 4 in AAA. Decent, sure. Very good? Hardly.

 

Don't really care about ERA compared to a 1.27 WHIP, 9.16 K/9, 2.85 BB/9, 3.21 K/BB and 0.59 HR/9. That's very good.

[Mephistopheles]

The last time Guzman had success at AA or higher was four years ago, in 2003. I can understand the reasoning for not wanting Miller in the rotation, but I don't understand the logic behind assuming that Guzman will be better when he hasn't done anything in the past several years.

 

That's not true. Guzman was very good last year at Iowa for 15 starts.

I'm not that impressed with an ERA over 4 in AAA. Decent, sure. Very good? Hardly.

 

Don't really care about ERA compared to a 1.27 WHIP, 9.16 K/9, 2.85 BB/9, 3.21 K/BB and 0.59 HR/9. That's very good.

to supplement. it's in iowa (hitters park) and he had not pitched much in over two years.

[CubColtPacer]

you dont get it. guzmans ERA last year was a fluke. its common sense. it can be thrown out the door.

 

oh, NOW i see

what no ones saying he did well. he just didnt do as bad as his ERA indicated. His ERA should have been around five or so. Is Miller any better than that? probably not. guzman probably is.

 

I'm really just curious here-if you sort out just his innings as a starter from last year-what do his peripherals say his ERA should have been?

[Mephistopheles]

low fives with FIP and or xFIP

[TruffleShuffle]

Guzman Career Stats:

 

Career W:0 L:6 ERA:7.41 G:17 GS:10 CG:0 SO:0 S:0 SO:0 IP:58.1 H:72 R:50 ER:48 HR:9 BB:37 K:62

 

So, what about these non-spring training stats make you believe that he is this phenomonal pitcher waiting to destroy oposing hitters at the plate? Hell this year he's pitched two innings and given up two earned runs and his numbers are looking right along those averages (since we're making comparasons on short data volumes anyway).

 

Miller might not be the guy, but Guzman hasn't show that he's it yet either. Make him earn it.

 

Look at his minor league numbers and then get back to me about how he isn't waiting to destroy opposing hitters.

 

yeah his minor league numbers the past three years are nothing special

[CubColtPacer]

low fives with FIP and or xFIP

 

Wow-that surprises me. His strikeout numbers are high, but his 2.11 WHIP and 1.90 HR/9 percentage have me definitely wondering how an ERA under 5.50 could be reasonably expected last year.

[oldstyle81]

ugh and ill be at his next game as well

[TruffleShuffle]

I feel like we're back to the days of Shawn Estes versus Juan Cruz and Glendon Rusch versus Rich Hill.

 

Joy.

 

Huge difference. Shawn Estes we all knew was terrible. He was terrible in 2002 and terrible for most of 2003 before the Cubs finally gave him the hook at the end of the year. Glendon Rusch was stinking up it up after a long opportunity, while Rich Hill was -- and here's the proper usage of this word -- destroying AAA batters.

 

Here you have a case of a pitcher, Angel Guzman, whose minor league numbers the past three years are not all that great, and who is a significant injury risk. On the other side, there's Wade Miller, a veteran pitcher who has hardly pitched at all since his most recent shoulder surgery. Maybe he'll stink it up and be removed from the rotation, but unlike Rusch and Estes, you don't have a real sample size to know that he's done.

 

Oh, and Juan Cruz never had the control that he should've had, and was rushed to the majors.

[Mephistopheles]

low fives with FIP and or xFIP

 

Wow-that surprises me. His strikeout numbers are high, but his 2.11 WHIP and 1.90 HR/9 percentage have me definitely wondering how an ERA under 5.50 could be reasonably expected last year.

the walks were the problem. its something hes never done before. all through the minors he had shown good walk rates so eventually its more than likely going to go down.

 

the main thing last year was a spiffy .381 BABIP. umm that just screams fluke.

[Mizzou]

If Miller stinks in his next outing aginst the Padres on Tuesday of next week, I wonder if he'll start that following Sunday against the Cards, or if Guzman (or perhaps Prior) will.

[oldstyle81]

If Miller stinks in his next outing aginst the Padres on Tuesday of next week, I wonder if he'll start that following Sunday against the Cards, or if Guzman (or perhaps Prior) will.

 

Imagine what Pujouls would do to him

[TruffleShuffle]

low fives with FIP and or xFIP

 

Wow-that surprises me. His strikeout numbers are high, but his 2.11 WHIP and 1.90 HR/9 percentage have me definitely wondering how an ERA under 5.50 could be reasonably expected last year.

the walks were the problem. its something hes never done before. all through the minors he had shown good walk rates so eventually its more than likely going to go down.

 

the main thing last year was a spiffy .381 BABIP. umm that just screams fluke.

 

LD% was ridiculously high, though. He needs to control his pitches better within the strike zone too.

[Mephistopheles]

low fives with FIP and or xFIP

 

Wow-that surprises me. His strikeout numbers are high, but his 2.11 WHIP and 1.90 HR/9 percentage have me definitely wondering how an ERA under 5.50 could be reasonably expected last year.

the walks were the problem. its something hes never done before. all through the minors he had shown good walk rates so eventually its more than likely going to go down.

 

the main thing last year was a spiffy .381 BABIP. umm that just screams fluke.

 

LD% was ridiculously high, though. He needs to control his pitches better within the strike zone too.

 

um LD% is another VERY inconsistent statistics with little to no year to year correlation

[TruffleShuffle]

low fives with FIP and or xFIP

 

Wow-that surprises me. His strikeout numbers are high, but his 2.11 WHIP and 1.90 HR/9 percentage have me definitely wondering how an ERA under 5.50 could be reasonably expected last year.

the walks were the problem. its something hes never done before. all through the minors he had shown good walk rates so eventually its more than likely going to go down.

 

the main thing last year was a spiffy .381 BABIP. umm that just screams fluke.

 

LD% was ridiculously high, though. He needs to control his pitches better within the strike zone too.

 

um LD% is another VERY inconsistent statistics with little to no year to year correlation

 

yeah i guess it's just a coincidence that good pitchers usually have low LD% and bad pitchers usually have high LD%.

 

Guzman threw way to many pitchers in the middle of the plate last year. I don't think I was imagining that.

[CubColtPacer]

low fives with FIP and or xFIP

 

Wow-that surprises me. His strikeout numbers are high, but his 2.11 WHIP and 1.90 HR/9 percentage have me definitely wondering how an ERA under 5.50 could be reasonably expected last year.

the walks were the problem. its something hes never done before. all through the minors he had shown good walk rates so eventually its more than likely going to go down.

 

the main thing last year was a spiffy .381 BABIP. umm that just screams fluke.

 

LD% was ridiculously high, though. He needs to control his pitches better within the strike zone too.

 

um LD% is another VERY inconsistent statistics with little to no year to year correlation

 

yeah i guess it's just a coincidence that good pitchers usually have low LD% and bad pitchers usually have high LD%.

 

Guzman threw way to many pitchers in the middle of the plate last year. I don't think I was imagining that.

 

If you are imagining it, then so am I. There were plenty of his starts in the majors last year where most of the balls hit off of him were hit very, very hard. Thinking off the top of my head, he was the worst of the rookie pitchers in that respect (the ones that got more than 2 starts at least).

 

In spring it was kind of the opposite. Guzman was much better at locating his pitches and avoiding that hard contact, but he couldn't get the bite on his pitches to get as many swings and misses as he did last year.

Edited April 11, 2007 by CubColtPacer

[SouthSideRyan]

Kelvin Samspon's a jerk!

[brinoch]

I think that Miller is just a placeholder until Prior returns.

[Derwood]

I think that Miller is just a placeholder if Prior returns.

 

fixed

[brinoch]

I think that Miller is just a placeholder until Prior returns.

 

fixed

 

Re-fixed.

 

Captain Optimism here is happy to give the benefit of the doubt to choads like Miller and Marquis but not Prior? Amusing.

 

I think the Cubs have three very solid starting pitchers and two question marks. I have serious doubts that they will be able to contend with these two jokers 2/5ths of the time. The question isn't whether Guzman will be better than either of these two guys this year, it's whether he'll do as good a job as either of these two guys, while developing himself for 2008.

 

If it is likely that he will do as good a job (and I think he will), then the right move is to go with Guzman.

[TruffleShuffle]

I think that Miller is just a placeholder until Prior returns.

 

fixed

 

Re-fixed.

 

Captain Optimism here is happy to give the benefit of the doubt to choads like Miller and Marquis but not Prior? Amusing.

 

I think the Cubs have three very solid starting pitchers and two question marks. I have serious doubts that they will be able to contend with these two jokers 2/5ths of the time. The question isn't whether Guzman will be better than either of these two guys this year, it's whether he'll do as good a job as either of these two guys, while developing himself for 2008.

 

If it is likely that he will do as good a job (and I think he will), then the right move is to go with Guzman.

 

I'm all for going with him if Miller is mediocre or downright bad... but he has to get about 4 starts to get a fair chance. I also think it's bad overall for the team if you can a guy for 1-2 bad starts. That sends a bad message and everybody will feel too much pressure to produce immediately, or else.

[brinoch]

Once the decision to go with Miller was made, I agree, you need to give him a chance. Heck, I hope he does well.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the decision or (what little I know of) the decision-making process the Cubs have in place.

[Mephistopheles]

low fives with FIP and or xFIP

 

Wow-that surprises me. His strikeout numbers are high, but his 2.11 WHIP and 1.90 HR/9 percentage have me definitely wondering how an ERA under 5.50 could be reasonably expected last year.

the walks were the problem. its something hes never done before. all through the minors he had shown good walk rates so eventually its more than likely going to go down.

 

the main thing last year was a spiffy .381 BABIP. umm that just screams fluke.

 

LD% was ridiculously high, though. He needs to control his pitches better within the strike zone too.

 

um LD% is another VERY inconsistent statistics with little to no year to year correlation

 

yeah i guess it's just a coincidence that good pitchers usually have low LD% and bad pitchers usually have high LD%.

 

Guzman threw way to many pitchers in the middle of the plate last year. I don't think I was imagining that.

 

First, are they good pitchers because there LD% is low or is their LD% low because theyre good pitchers? Obviously having a low LD% means youre not giving up a lot of hits, but it doesnt mean its a repeatable skill.

 

Now, lets look at the top 15% last season in LD percentage with ERA

 

1. Derek Lowe

2. Randy Johnson

3. Jose Contreras

4. Barry Zito

5. Clay Hensley

6. Matt Cain

7. Chien Ming Wang

8. Jason Marquis

9. Carlos Zambrano

10. Jake Westbrook

11. Brandon Webb

12. Josh Beckett

 

Now let's look at the bottom 15%

 

1. Paul Byrd

2. Joel Piniero

3. Tom Glavine

4. Justin Verlander

5. Jeff Suppan

6. Carlos Silva

7. Rodrigo Lopez

8. Aaron Harang

9. Andy Pettitte

10. Jon Lieber

11. Vicente Padilla

12. Bronson Arroyo

 

The ones with the lower LD% performed about .5 better in ERA, but Verlander, Harang, Arroyo, Glavine and Pettitte aren't chopped beef. Last year there were 76 guys who pitched 162 innings. So let's break them into groups of 11. here is the collective ERA+ of those guys.

1. 113.82

2. 105.09

3. 110.09

4. 112.64

5. 108.82

6. 110.36

7. 98.82

 

Here's the r^2 correlation for the RA and LD% (the highest in the spreadsheet i had) a whopping 0.061. That's SO HUGE! Ironically enough if you do the data again in 2005, the bottom group actually has a lower RA than the top group.

 

Okay from 2004-06 there were 110 sets of back to back seasons by pitchers with more than 162 innings pitched. Of those 76 guys in the last set, only 54 of them reached that amount in the previous year. Lets divide them by 14, 13, 13, 14.

 

In 2005, the first set of 14, the guys with lowest LD% in 2006 had a ERA+ of 114.9. In 2005 the guys with the highest LD% in 2006 had an ERA+ of 113.4. That's pretty much no difference whatsoever. Especially when the 2006 difference was 111.2 to 98.9

 

Now using the 110 seasons I had before, the year to year correlation of LD% is an r of .1852 and an r^2 of an amazing .0343. Yay there's almost nothing from it! So useful(ess).

 

Now, one thing I did notice when I split up those groups is that every group but the top level had essentially the same GB%. The top was about five percent higher because Derrek Lowe and Chien Ming Wang. So if you are UBER elite (we're talking 60%+ GB% which is three or four pitchers in all of baseball) you can keep your LDs down BUT the effect is probably canceled out because GBs are hits more often than flyballs.

 

Regardless like I said LD% is pretty much worthless for pitchers from year to year.

[Mephistopheles]

So using that data, lets answer the first question:

 

Are they good pitchers because their LD% is low or is their LD% low because theyre good pitchers?

 

It appears that they are good pitchers because their LD% is low.