3rd starter?

[dew1679666265]

There's been a lot of concern lately over who will be the Cubs' number three starter come playoff time. People have been concerned over whether we have anybody good enough after Z and Lilly to compete in the short series and there has been interest shown in acquiring a starter to fill that role.

So, I decided to take a look at the other third starters we'd likely be facing in the playoffs to see how they stack up to ours. Here's what I found:

 

Braves - Smoltz and Hudson are their 1 and 2. After that, they have Chuck James, Jo-Jo Reyes and Buddy Carlyle. James is likely to be the third starter out of that group and his numbers are 118 ERA+ with an 80:47 K:BB ratio.

 

Mets - Glavine and Oliver Perez are listed as their top two starters, though Perez could be bumped by either of their third starter candidates - Orlando Hernandez and John Maine. Both have been good, but neither is a sure thing to continue. El Duque has a 131 ERA+ and a 77:39 K:BB ratio. The past four seasons, though, he's posted a 106, 78, 95 and 87 ERA+. Maine, a second year major leaguer, has a 134 ERA+ and a 101:45 K:BB ratio.

 

Brewers - Capuano and Suppan are the best they've got. After that, Yovani Gallardo is easily their most talented and I suspect even after a dropoff he'll be better than Dave Bush. Gallardo currently sports a 184 ERA+ and a 31:11 K:BB ratio. He's definitely very talented, but these numbers scream sample size. They also have Sheets, if he can stay healthy.

 

Dodgers - Derek Lowe and Brad Penny are their best and third has to be 22-year-old Chad Billingsley. Thus far this year he's posted a 123 ERA+ and a 64:29 K:BB ratio. Quite good, but I have doubts about his sustainability right now.

 

Padres - This is easily the best top two yet - Jake Peavy and Chris Young. After them, though, the Fathers have Greg Maddux and David Wells. Maddux is easily the better of the two and he's put up a 97 ERA+ with a 66:19 K:BB ratio.

 

D'Backs - Brandon Webb is terrific and Livan Hernandez is serviceable. After that, Doug Davis has a 110 ERA+ and an 80:67 K:BB ratio.

 

So how do the Cubs' options stack up you may ask? Here you go:

 

Rich Hill - 123 ERA+ with a 105:38 K:BB ratio. That's better than everybody but Billingsley (tied), Hernandez, Maine and Gallardo. I'd wager he'll end the year better than Gallardo.

 

Jason Marquis - 113 ERA+ and a 67:45 K:BB ratio. I'd definitely stick him in the pen for the playoffs unless he's on a hot streak entering them. He's better than only Maddux and Davis in ERA+.

 

Sean Marshall - 136 ERA+ and a 45:21 K:BB ratio. Very good numbers, but again sample size might be an issue. Nowhere near as big as Gallardo, but still an issue.

 

Barring an incredible hot streak by either Marshall or Marquis, I'd definitely start Hill behind Z and Lilly and have the other two ready in case he struggles. Compared to the other third starters in the NL though, I think we match up quite favorably.

[shnsajax]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

[dew1679666265]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

[shnsajax]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

 

Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-).

[TruffleShuffle]

I'd definitely go with Hill as the third starter. Marquis and to some extent Marshall have stuff that good-hitting teams may be able to exploit. When Hill is pitching his best, he can mow down good lineups as well as bad ones.

 

But yeah, the whole concern about our starting pitching is a little silly. Almost every team in the NL wishes they had five starters like the five that the Cubs have.

 

 

And just as an aside, Pedro Martinez may be in the mix for the Mets.

[NCCubFan]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

 

Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-).

I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners.

[soccer10k]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

 

Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-).

I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners.

 

To put a little perspective to that, in series that were tied at one in 2005 and 2006, the team that won game 3 won the series all seven times. To go back a little farther, since 2000 in series that were tied at one the team that won game 3 went 21-5 in the series. The Marlins in 2003 actually lost game 3's in this situation (series tied at 1) to both the Cubs and Yankees.

 

So yeah, when the series is tied, Game 3 is very important.

[Electron Blue]

the fact that we have three solid pitchers competing for that 3rd spot is good sign, rather trying to pick the best of the worst. also, it's a good sign for the cubs that we're even talking about a playoff roster nearly four months into the season.

[dew1679666265]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

 

Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-).

I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners.

 

Thanks for the research. I was going to last night, but my internet went down. :x

[dew1679666265]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

 

Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-).

I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners.

 

To put a little perspective to that, in series that were tied at one in 2005 and 2006, the team that won game 3 won the series all seven times. To go back a little farther, since 2000 in series that were tied at one the team that won game 3 went 21-5 in the series. The Marlins in 2003 actually lost game 3's in this situation (series tied at 1) to both the Cubs and Yankees.

 

So yeah, when the series is tied, Game 3 is very important.

 

Intriguing. Guess this means anyone worried about our third starter should hope Z and Lilly blow the other team away in the first two games. :D

[dew1679666265]

And just as an aside, Pedro Martinez may be in the mix for the Mets.

 

I thought about that when figuring things up, but I have no idea when he's expected to return and what shape he'll be in when playoff time rolls around. Too many variables to include him right now, in my opinion.

[shnsajax]

To have a 3rd starter that is far superior to their #3 starter though would be huge. If its a coin toss though, who knows.

[dew1679666265]

To have a 3rd starter that is far superior to their #3 starter though would be huge. If its a coin toss though, who knows.

 

Definitely having a better third starter is important, but what names are out there to acquire? Jon Garland? Jose Contreras?

 

I don't see anyone currently available that would be an upgrade over what we've got. The only way to really improve would be to highly overpay in an attempt to pry somebody away (Javier Vazquez or Dontrelle Willis for instance) and I just don't see that it would be worth doing that.

[badgercub]

I would take Yovani Gallardo of the Brewers, I think that guy is the real deal. We should learn a lot about him with Sheets out. I think he could be a legit #1 if not now somewhere down the road.

[dew1679666265]

I would take Yovani Gallardo of the Brewers, I think that guy is the real deal. We should learn a lot about him with Sheets out. I think he could be a legit #1 if not now somewhere down the road.

 

Gallardo has a ton of talent, but just for this year I think I like Rich Hill better. He's got a little more major league experience and is a little more proven than Gallardo at this level. I realize there's a general distaste for the term "proven veterans" here, but the fact that he's had success over an extended period of time makes me more comfortable with him than Gallardo right now.

[shnsajax]

I would take Yovani Gallardo of the Brewers, I think that guy is the real deal. We should learn a lot about him with Sheets out. I think he could be a legit #1 if not now somewhere down the road.

 

Gallardo has a ton of talent, but just for this year I think I like Rich Hill better. He's got a little more major league experience and is a little more proven than Gallardo at this level. I realize there's a general distaste for the term "proven veterans" here, but the fact that he's had success over an extended period of time makes me more comfortable with him than Gallardo right now.

 

Hill is also going to hit the 200 innings mark.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Even if Sheets comes back and doesn't miss a beat, and if Gallardo continues to pitch this well out of the rotation, then those 2 are the 1-2 and Hill is still better than Capuano or Suppan or Bush or Vargas.

[Derwood]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

 

Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-).

I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners.

 

To put a little perspective to that, in series that were tied at one in 2005 and 2006, the team that won game 3 won the series all seven times. To go back a little farther, since 2000 in series that were tied at one the team that won game 3 went 21-5 in the series. The Marlins in 2003 actually lost game 3's in this situation (series tied at 1) to both the Cubs and Yankees.

 

So yeah, when the series is tied, Game 3 is very important.

 

but your 3rd starter doesn't always start Game 3. If you didn't clinch the playoff spot until the final day of the season, it may have been your ace who pitched on that Sunday, meaning your ace would be pitching Game 3

[dew1679666265]

I would take Yovani Gallardo of the Brewers, I think that guy is the real deal. We should learn a lot about him with Sheets out. I think he could be a legit #1 if not now somewhere down the road.

 

Gallardo has a ton of talent, but just for this year I think I like Rich Hill better. He's got a little more major league experience and is a little more proven than Gallardo at this level. I realize there's a general distaste for the term "proven veterans" here, but the fact that he's had success over an extended period of time makes me more comfortable with him than Gallardo right now.

 

Hill is also going to hit the 200 innings mark.

 

His pitch count in each outing has been kept fairly low and he reached 199.1 innings last season combined between Iowa and Chicago. In 05 he pitched 153 innings and before that 109.

A full 200 may wear him down a bit, but I'm not terribly worried about it. I would be in favor of giving him a start or two off if possible down the stretch.

[dew1679666265]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

 

Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-).

I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners.

 

To put a little perspective to that, in series that were tied at one in 2005 and 2006, the team that won game 3 won the series all seven times. To go back a little farther, since 2000 in series that were tied at one the team that won game 3 went 21-5 in the series. The Marlins in 2003 actually lost game 3's in this situation (series tied at 1) to both the Cubs and Yankees.

 

So yeah, when the series is tied, Game 3 is very important.

 

but your 3rd starter doesn't always start Game 3. If you didn't clinch the playoff spot until the final day of the season, it may have been your ace who pitched on that Sunday, meaning your ace would be pitching Game 3

 

And for a team like the Padres this year, it would behoove them to start Maddux in game 2 (assuming the first two at home) rather than game 3 on the road, thus putting Chris Young in a game 3 mismatch. Not sure how many instances of that we can find, but it's at least a small consideration.

[soccer10k]

anyone want to research the importance of Game 3 in the playoffs towards winning the series? I'm curious just not up for the work :-).

 

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

 

Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-).

I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners.

 

To put a little perspective to that, in series that were tied at one in 2005 and 2006, the team that won game 3 won the series all seven times. To go back a little farther, since 2000 in series that were tied at one the team that won game 3 went 21-5 in the series. The Marlins in 2003 actually lost game 3's in this situation (series tied at 1) to both the Cubs and Yankees.

 

So yeah, when the series is tied, Game 3 is very important.

 

but your 3rd starter doesn't always start Game 3. If you didn't clinch the playoff spot until the final day of the season, it may have been your ace who pitched on that Sunday, meaning your ace would be pitching Game 3

 

Yeah, I was going to add that right now about how a #3 starter doesn't necessarily start game 3.