What to do about the rotation

[17 Seconds]

Basically you have an ace (Z), a #3 starter (Lilly) and three #5's (Hill, Dempster, Marquis) in there.

I hope you're joking about the bolded part.

 

As of right now, Hill should be lucky to call himself a major league starter.

 

Umm, why? He had 1 bad start. ONE.

[UMFan83]

Basically you have an ace (Z), a #3 starter (Lilly) and three #5's (Hill, Dempster, Marquis) in there.

I hope you're joking about the bolded part.

 

As of right now, Hill should be lucky to call himself a major league starter.

 

Umm, why? He had 1 bad start. ONE.

 

As well as a horrible spring, and even his one decent start he was on shakey ground a lot of the game. I'm not going to go as far as saying he's lucky to be in the bigs, but I don't believe his is this number 2/3 starter like most people here think. He's a solid 4/5, and theres nothing wrong with that.

[Guest]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

[JimSorgi]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

Is VORP a good stat to use for pitchers? Because last year he was 34th in the league.

[17 Seconds]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

Is VORP a good stat to use for pitchers? Because last year he was 34th in the league.

 

34th among starters? That makes no sense.

[JimSorgi]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

Is VORP a good stat to use for pitchers? Because last year he was 34th in the league.

 

34th among starters? That makes no sense.

why not?

[Outshined_One]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

Is VORP a good stat to use for pitchers? Because last year he was 34th in the league.

 

Depends on which VORP you use. The old one is much more favorable toward relievers. BP revised this stat and changed the weights for SPs and RPs.

[imb]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

Is VORP a good stat to use for pitchers? Because last year he was 34th in the league.

 

34th among starters? That makes no sense.

 

So he's a number 2?

[17 Seconds]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

Is VORP a good stat to use for pitchers? Because last year he was 34th in the league.

 

34th among starters? That makes no sense.

 

So he's a number 2?

 

He said 34th in the league, not in baseball. If that's 34th among starting pitchers, then I don't get it. How could there have possibly been 33 starters in the NL ahead of him last season?

[imb]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

Is VORP a good stat to use for pitchers? Because last year he was 34th in the league.

 

34th among starters? That makes no sense.

 

So he's a number 2?

 

He said 34th in the league, not in baseball. If that's 34th among starting pitchers, then I don't get it. How could there have possibly been 33 starters in the NL ahead of him last season?

 

Well, there are 30 teams, and if we go with the notion that each No. 1 is better than hill, that would rank him as the fourth best no. 2?

[Outshined_One]

Most 4/5 starters aren't in the top 8 in the league in Ks, WHIP and BAA in their first full season in the big leagues. Actually, top 5 in Ks.

Is VORP a good stat to use for pitchers? Because last year he was 34th in the league.

 

34th among starters? That makes no sense.

 

So he's a number 2?

 

He said 34th in the league, not in baseball. If that's 34th among starting pitchers, then I don't get it. How could there have possibly been 33 starters in the NL ahead of him last season?

 

Notice he said pitchers, rather than starting pitchers. In other words, according to the VORP he used, Hill last season was the 34th overall best pitcher in VORP, rather than 34th best starting pitcher.

 

However, I'd like to see more about this ranking, such as if it's the old VORP (meaning relievers get significantly better treatment) or what sample size cutoffs were used for pitchers.

[Rob]

The list in question...

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=205391

[17 Seconds]

See, that's 34th in all of baseball. He said 34th in the league, which I thought sounded bogus.

 

He's 17th in the league.

[SouthSideRyan]

Basically you have an ace (Z), a #3 starter (Lilly) and three #5's (Hill, Dempster, Marquis) in there.

I hope you're joking about the bolded part.

 

As of right now, Hill should be lucky to call himself a major league starter.

 

Umm, why? He had 1 bad start. ONE.

 

As well as a horrible spring, and even his one decent start he was on shakey ground a lot of the game. I'm not going to go as far as saying he's lucky to be in the bigs, but I don't believe his is this number 2/3 starter like most people here think. He's a solid 4/5, and theres nothing wrong with that.

 

I'm not following you on him being on shaky ground during his one "decent" start (ERAs of 3 are just decent?)

 

Other than the inning where he gave up the 2 runs, he was in trouble in one inning. It's hard to be on shaky ground all game when you only allow 8 baserunners through 6, and only 2 extra base hits.

[TruffleShuffle]

so rich hill is a #2 starter based on VORP. glad we're all in agreement here.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Maybe the 2011 rotation will get the job done:

 

Zambrano

Jeff Samardzia

Sean Gallagher

Rich Hill

Donnie Veal

[Guest]

Donnie Veal has a lot of work to do to be in the 2011 rotation.

 

Of course in 2004, Rich Hill had a lot of work to be in the 2007 rotation.

[Guest]

Donnie Veal has a lot of work to do to be in the 2011 rotation.

 

Of course in 2004, Rich Hill had a lot of work to be in the 2007 rotation.

Yeah, but even in 2004 when he was a wild man, he was still striking out 12+ batters / 9ip. Veal isn't at that level.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I was partially joking. Going by the law of averages, between Gallagher, Veal, and Samardzia, we'll have one respectable #2, one serviceable #4 or 5 guy, and one total bust.

 

BTW, has the organization given up on Angel Guaman yet? What about Mark Pawelek. I know hes young still, but he's not doing so hot.

[Guest]

I was partially joking. Going by the law of averages, between Gallagher, Veal, and Samardzia, we'll have one respectable #2, one serviceable #4 or 5 guy, and one total bust.

 

BTW, has the organization given up on Angel Guaman yet? What about Mark Pawelek. I know hes young still, but he's not doing so hot.

Going by the law of averages, you'll get a serviceable #3-5, a swingman and a bust out of those three.

 

I'm not talking about Cubs, but MLB-wide for prospects in that tier.

[mcgoobs]

It's still early but I think most of us here are concerned about the performance of our rotation thus far. I kind of expected the rotation to be a problem spot this season, hence the reason I projected the Cubs to win 83 games this season, but its still disconcerning to be proven right so far. Take a look at some of the performances we've gotten so far:

 

Lilly:

4.2 IP, 4 ER

3.2 IP, 5 ER

4.1 IP, 5 ER

 

Hill:

6 IP, 2 ER

3 IP, 3 ER

 

Marquis:

5.1 IP, 4 ER

 

Zambrano:

6.2 IP, 0 ER

7 IP, 2 ER

6 IP, 5 ER

 

Dempster:

6 IP, 1 ER

7 IP, 0 ER

 

Thats a grand total of 2 starts over 7 IP all year, 4 starts lasting less than 5 IP, and 4 quality starts out of the first 11.

 

So what do we suggest is done. We have 7 "starters" on our team if you include Lieber and Marshall. We also have Gallagher who is sitting in Iowa waiting for a game to not be rained out. How do you propose the rotation is fixed? Fill one of the other guys in there? Just keep it as it is and let the pitchers settle down and work itself out? I lean towards change, but I thought the rotation was pretty awful before the season. Basically you have an ace (Z), a #3 starter (Lilly) and three #5's (Hill, Dempster, Marquis) in there.

 

During Johan Santana's 2004 season, he once had a three game set that went as follows:

5.1 IP, 4 ER

3.0 IP, 7 ER

6.1 IP, 4 ER

 

During Jake Peavy's 2005 season, he once had a three game set that went a follows:

5.2 IP, 5 ER

7.0 IP, 1 ER

5.0 IP, 7 ER

 

During Pedro Martinez's 2002 season, his first three starts went as follows:

3.0 IP, 7 ER

6.0 IP, 0 ER

5.1 IP, 4 ER

 

None of our pitchers should be expected to put up the performances the three above did, but it's selective sampling to show that 3 starts does not a pitcher make.

 

I don't see Lilly or Hill getting demoted to the bullpen, and given Dempster's performance so far, the coaching staff will keep him in the rotation for at least the forseeable future.

 

It really comes down to Marquis vs Lieber for that last spot. Lou and the staff might like having a reliable long-man in the bullpen like Lieber, in which case you can assume no change to the rotation. I'd love to see Marshall get the nod over Lieber or Marquis but don't think that's likely.

[Skyballer]

Z

Lilly

Hill

 

Those three belong in the rotation. No questions asked. Beyond that, play the hot hand.

I think Marshall deserves a start.

[brinoch]

I would do nothing with the rotation. I'd ensure that the pitchers were working to figure out their problem, fix their mechanics, etc. But that's it.

[bcl412]

I think what is so great about our team's pitching depth is, while it's a bunch of average pitchers, Lou is able to make these over reactionary moves. If one guy pitches terrible for a couple of starts, put someone else in there until they pitch terrible, once they pitch bad put the previous starter back, and then some. At least that is what I think Lou's mindset is when it comes to the way he has handled the pitching staff this year so far.

[Irrelevant Dude]

With my company being big into Six Sigma, any changes to the rotation at this point would be unnecessary firefighting. There is clearly not enough data yet this season to justify a rotation change. Then again, I think the only black belt Lou has is the one that is struggling to contain his old-time manager belly.