Carlos "The Ace" Zambrano

[USSoccer]

Yeah, there's nothing really wrong with his velocity.

 

I think he's down 2 or 3 mph from a couple years ago. I remember him hitting 99 in the NLCS. He was always more effective working in the 94mph range, but even when he really lets one fly it's not as hard as it had been.

 

Was that the game where Beckett also threw one at "99" to Sammy?

 

I had my doubts about the gun in that game.

 

Maybe. I remember Z overthrowing the entire time.

 

I remember Beckett throwing one that Sosa thought was at his head.

[Jon]

Yeah, there's nothing really wrong with his velocity.

 

Completely disagree. He's regularly way below his past normal velocity, and only occasionally dials it up to that level. There is definitely something wrong with it.

There's not really a difference from what it was last year, when they really made an effort to get him to stop overthrowing the ball (which he isn't really doing now at all). But if there is a 2 mph difference and he's dropping down a lot more, a drop in velocity isn't really the concern since you can't compare it to what he was hitting with a higher arm slot. You can't determine if there's a drop due to an arm issue or a drop that is a byproduct of something correctable.

 

 

 

The odd phenomenon with Zambrano is how much he has been hurt by the big inning (partly because of that ridiculous SLG% against). He has given up more than 3 runs in a game 6 times. In 5 of those, he had one really bad inning:

 

4/13 vs. Cincinnati - 6 runs allowed, 6 runs in the 5th inning

4/18 @ Atlanta - 5 runs allowed, 4 runs in the 1st inning

5/4 vs. Washington - 4 runs allowed, 4 runs in the 1st inning

5/10 vs. Pittsburgh - 6 runs allowed (4 earned), 3 runs in the 1st inning

5/20 vs. Chicago - 7 runs allowed, 4 runs in the 7th inning

 

In all of those, he either had his bad inning in the first inning or his last inning, nothing in between. Of the other starts, he had one bad one (4/2) when he didn't really have one bad inning and 4 strong starts.

 

 

Also, for those who want to move Zambrano, what realistically could happen if he's still struggling in a month? What could Jim get, especially considering his job is on the line and he doesn't exactly favor "rebuilding" trades? And if he has a strong June, is there any way he gets moved?

[USSoccer]

 

 

Also, for those who want to move Zambrano, what realistically could happen if he's still struggling in a month? What could Jim get, especially considering his job is on the line and he doesn't exactly favor "rebuilding" trades? And if he has a strong June, is there any way he gets moved?

 

The biggest problem with trading Z is the guy who would be trading him. I've no confidence that Hendry would know what players from which systems to target.

 

That said, assuming Hendry is a replacement level GM, even a struggling Z would bring in a good amount of talent. There's always the "change of scenery" argument to be had.

 

And if Z has a strong June, and the team is still 7 out, that just makes replacement level Hendry's job negotiating for a good deal easier.

[Jon]

 

 

Also, for those who want to move Zambrano, what realistically could happen if he's still struggling in a month? What could Jim get, especially considering his job is on the line and he doesn't exactly favor "rebuilding" trades? And if he has a strong June, is there any way he gets moved?

 

The biggest problem with trading Z is the guy who would be trading him. I've no confidence that Hendry would know what players from which systems to target.

 

That said, assuming Hendry is a replacement level GM, even a struggling Z would bring in a good amount of talent. There's always the "change of scenery" argument to be had.

 

And if Z has a strong June, and the team is still 7 out, that just makes replacement level Hendry's job negotiating for a good deal easier.

The odds of the Cubs being out of it to the point where Hendry is willing to concede at the end of June aren't too high. But even if Jim were to try to move Zambrano, what team would be willing to part with the big league talent under contract that he'd be looking for?

[RichHillIsABeast]

The biggest problem with trading Z is the guy who would be trading him. I've no confidence that Hendry would know what players from which systems to target.

 

You mean the guy that brought in ARam, DLee, and Barrett via trade?

[C.C.]

The biggest problem with trading Z is the guy who would be trading him. I've no confidence that Hendry would know what players from which systems to target.

 

You mean the guy that brought in ARam, DLee, and Barrett via trade?

 

Hendry has made some fine trades. You can add Murton and Nomar (it was a good effort).

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The biggest problem with trading Z is the guy who would be trading him. I've no confidence that Hendry would know what players from which systems to target.

 

You mean the guy that brought in ARam, DLee, and Barrett via trade?

 

Hendry has made some fine trades. You can add Murton and Nomar (it was a good effort).

 

 

The Neifi Perez trades trumps all of those.

[jjgman21]

 

* And before anyone brings up 6.0 IP and 3 ER equating to a 4.50 ERA, that's a rare event. From 1984 to 1991, the ERA for MLB in quality starts was 1.91.

 

 

that seems impossible.

 

at first glance it does, but once you realize the finite number of possible combinations of 6 IP and under 4.5 ERA and what typically happens during those games, it starts to make sense. usually when a starter has a quality start, he actually has a dominant start, having allowed only a run or two if any. when a pitcher has only allowed a run or two through six, usually he stays in the game, thus increasing the number of IP and lowering the ERA for the game even more. if he gives up runs, often times its blows the QS all together, thus taking it out of the equations above.

 

without delving into the rare instance when a starter goes extra innings, here are the possibilities.

 

6 IP - 3 ER - 4.50 ERA

6 IP - 2 ER - 3.00 ERA

6 IP - 1 ER - 1.50 ERA

6 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

7 IP - 3 ER - 3.86 ERA

7 IP - 2 ER - 2.57 ERA

7 IP - 1 ER - 1.29 ERA

7 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

8 IP - 4 ER - 4.50 ERA

8 IP - 3 ER - 3.38 ERA

8 IP - 2 ER - 2.25 ERA

8 IP - 1 ER - 1.13 ERA

8 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

9 IP - 4 ER - 4.00 ERA

9 IP - 3 ER - 3.00 ERA

9 IP - 2 ER - 2.00 ERA

9 IP - 1 ER - 1.00 ERA

9 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

I agree to an extent that the stat stinks, but it's not that bad. I think the rule should be pitching six innings and allowing a 3.86 ERA or less. that way the stat includes 6 IP, 2 ER and 7 IP, 3 ER performances, but gets rid of 6 IP, 3 ER and 8/9 IP, 4 ER performances. however, considering how rare those starts are amongst the possibilities, the start really isn't that bad.

[Lockes Eye Scar]

The biggest problem with trading Z is the guy who would be trading him. I've no confidence that Hendry would know what players from which systems to target.

 

You mean the guy that brought in ARam, DLee, and Barrett via trade?

 

Hendry has made some fine trades. You can add Murton and Nomar (it was a good effort).

 

 

The Neifi Perez trades trumps all of those.

 

Does everyone remember that Hendry actually traded for Jose Macias? I know he didn't give up anything, but it always amuses me.

[Shilzzz]

didn't PECOTA/BP predict all this after his walk rate jumped last year?

 

very few pitchers of zambrano's ilk stay effective long.

[Monco]

Steve Phillips ? Hes just there to make the others look smart.

[MPrior]

 

* And before anyone brings up 6.0 IP and 3 ER equating to a 4.50 ERA, that's a rare event. From 1984 to 1991, the ERA for MLB in quality starts was 1.91.

 

 

that seems impossible.

 

at first glance it does, but once you realize the finite number of possible combinations of 6 IP and under 4.5 ERA and what typically happens during those games, it starts to make sense. usually when a starter has a quality start, he actually has a dominant start, having allowed only a run or two if any. when a pitcher has only allowed a run or two through six, usually he stays in the game, thus increasing the number of IP and lowering the ERA for the game even more. if he gives up runs, often times its blows the QS all together, thus taking it out of the equations above.

 

without delving into the rare instance when a starter goes extra innings, here are the possibilities.

 

6 IP - 3 ER - 4.50 ERA

6 IP - 2 ER - 3.00 ERA

6 IP - 1 ER - 1.50 ERA

6 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

7 IP - 3 ER - 3.86 ERA

7 IP - 2 ER - 2.57 ERA

7 IP - 1 ER - 1.29 ERA

7 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

8 IP - 4 ER - 4.50 ERA

8 IP - 3 ER - 3.38 ERA

8 IP - 2 ER - 2.25 ERA

8 IP - 1 ER - 1.13 ERA

8 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

9 IP - 4 ER - 4.00 ERA

9 IP - 3 ER - 3.00 ERA

9 IP - 2 ER - 2.00 ERA

9 IP - 1 ER - 1.00 ERA

9 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

I agree to an extent that the stat stinks, but it's not that bad. I think the rule should be pitching six innings and allowing a 3.86 ERA or less. that way the stat includes 6 IP, 2 ER and 7 IP, 3 ER performances, but gets rid of 6 IP, 3 ER and 8/9 IP, 4 ER performances. however, considering how rare those starts are amongst the possibilities, the start really isn't that bad.

 

Question/nitpick: Are the bolded actually considered QS? Everything I've heard is 6 IP or more, 3 ER or less, which is a very stupid definition.

[jjgman21]

 

* And before anyone brings up 6.0 IP and 3 ER equating to a 4.50 ERA, that's a rare event. From 1984 to 1991, the ERA for MLB in quality starts was 1.91.

 

 

that seems impossible.

 

at first glance it does, but once you realize the finite number of possible combinations of 6 IP and under 4.5 ERA and what typically happens during those games, it starts to make sense. usually when a starter has a quality start, he actually has a dominant start, having allowed only a run or two if any. when a pitcher has only allowed a run or two through six, usually he stays in the game, thus increasing the number of IP and lowering the ERA for the game even more. if he gives up runs, often times its blows the QS all together, thus taking it out of the equations above.

 

without delving into the rare instance when a starter goes extra innings, here are the possibilities.

 

6 IP - 3 ER - 4.50 ERA

6 IP - 2 ER - 3.00 ERA

6 IP - 1 ER - 1.50 ERA

6 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

7 IP - 3 ER - 3.86 ERA

7 IP - 2 ER - 2.57 ERA

7 IP - 1 ER - 1.29 ERA

7 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

8 IP - 4 ER - 4.50 ERA

8 IP - 3 ER - 3.38 ERA

8 IP - 2 ER - 2.25 ERA

8 IP - 1 ER - 1.13 ERA

8 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

9 IP - 4 ER - 4.00 ERA

9 IP - 3 ER - 3.00 ERA

9 IP - 2 ER - 2.00 ERA

9 IP - 1 ER - 1.00 ERA

9 IP - 0 ER - 0.00 ERA

 

I agree to an extent that the stat stinks, but it's not that bad. I think the rule should be pitching six innings and allowing a 3.86 ERA or less. that way the stat includes 6 IP, 2 ER and 7 IP, 3 ER performances, but gets rid of 6 IP, 3 ER and 8/9 IP, 4 ER performances. however, considering how rare those starts are amongst the possibilities, the start really isn't that bad.

 

Question/nitpick: Are the bolded actually considered QS? Everything I've heard is 6 IP or more, 3 ER or less, which is a very stupid definition.

 

I guess you are right. I thought it was 6+ with a 4.5. so that makes the stat a little stupider. I would consider a 8/9 IP, 4 ER performance of higher quality than a 6 IP, 3 ER performance.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Steve Phillips ? Hes just there to make the others look smart.

Think you misspelled John Kruk. 8-)

 

(Though to Kruker's credit, I was appreciative of a huge breakdown he did on Baseball Tonight a few weeks back arguing that the Cubs' woes the last 2-3 seasons have been because our hitters didn't walk enough while our pitchers walked too many. Good to actually hear someone in the 'media' acknowledge the painfully obvious for once.)

[USSoccer]

 

 

Also, for those who want to move Zambrano, what realistically could happen if he's still struggling in a month? What could Jim get, especially considering his job is on the line and he doesn't exactly favor "rebuilding" trades? And if he has a strong June, is there any way he gets moved?

 

The biggest problem with trading Z is the guy who would be trading him. I've no confidence that Hendry would know what players from which systems to target.

 

That said, assuming Hendry is a replacement level GM, even a struggling Z would bring in a good amount of talent. There's always the "change of scenery" argument to be had.

 

And if Z has a strong June, and the team is still 7 out, that just makes replacement level Hendry's job negotiating for a good deal easier.

The odds of the Cubs being out of it to the point where Hendry is willing to concede at the end of June aren't too high. But even if Jim were to try to move Zambrano, what team would be willing to part with the big league talent under contract that he'd be looking for?

 

I agree that the Cubs probably won't be in a position for Hendry to be able to move him. However, teams in contention would be willing to give up quite a bit despite Z's contract status. Randy Johnson got moved for some talent despite impending FA status. If a team thinks Z is the difference between making the postseason and falling short, they'll give something up.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

My fear is that even if the Cubs are 8+ games out of the WC or division lead in late July and thus are in a position to shop Z, teams will be reluctant to give up as much considering how well-documented his "issues" are thanks to the national media. Everyone and their mother seems to think Z has a combination of 1) mechanical flaws, 2) emotional instability, 3) mental hangover from looming contract, and have said as much on a variety of internet portals (Hard Ball Times, BP) and on ESPN.com or Baseball Tonight. If his ERA is still floating above 5, teams may think to themselves "Well if Rothschild couldn't get through to him, why would our pitching coach be able to?"

 

Obviously any team seriously interested in Z will do their fair share of in-game scouting to make their own assessments, but I feel like the "he's a proven #1, he just needs a change of scenery" angle loses a bit of steam every successive start in which he gets knocked around and pundits then immediatley break down his sloppy delivery and loss of velocity.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Yes, I think we're rapidly approaching the point of inevitability with Z leaving the Cubs. Maybe we're all wrong, I don't know.

 

From Phil's point of view, the rumor of moving Dempster to the rotation now (assuming he shows some competency) would assure that the Cubs have 4 starters under control in 2008: Lilly, Marquis, Hill, Dempster. The 5th will be some combination of Samardzija, Marshall, Prior or Veal.

 

I would think that Holliman and Gallagher should be ahead of Shark and Veal on that list.

[KingCubsFan]

Yes, I think we're rapidly approaching the point of inevitability with Z leaving the Cubs. Maybe we're all wrong, I don't know.

 

From Phil's point of view, the rumor of moving Dempster to the rotation now (assuming he shows some competency) would assure that the Cubs have 4 starters under control in 2008: Lilly, Marquis, Hill, Dempster. The 5th will be some combination of Samardzija, Marshall, Prior or Veal.

 

I would think that Holliman and Gallagher should be ahead of Shark and Veal on that list.

While Holliman is off to a good start this year, I'm not sure if we should be considering him a future starter. Unless his stuff has greatly improved, he doesn't really appear to be anything special.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Yes, I think we're rapidly approaching the point of inevitability with Z leaving the Cubs. Maybe we're all wrong, I don't know.

 

From Phil's point of view, the rumor of moving Dempster to the rotation now (assuming he shows some competency) would assure that the Cubs have 4 starters under control in 2008: Lilly, Marquis, Hill, Dempster. The 5th will be some combination of Samardzija, Marshall, Prior or Veal.

 

I would think that Holliman and Gallagher should be ahead of Shark and Veal on that list.

While Holliman is off to a good start this year, I'm not sure if we should be considering him a future starter. Unless his stuff has greatly improved, he doesn't really appear to be anything special.

 

He was really good the other night. I'm not sure if it was indicative of all his starts, but he was quite impressive.

 

Just on performance, Veal and Shark have a ways to go.