Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[YearofDaCubs]

So only 5-6 teams have comparable tops of the rotation, but we "lack dominance"? This is really a terrible argument.

 

I've also just realized I've spent the last 50 or so posts of mine arguing with people who don't think games in Petco Park are real.

 

So it's all just a big, flukey coincidence that he's pitched so above-averagishly on the road and awesomely at home.

That always hasn't been the case though. There have been 2-3 years where Peavy pitched very well on the road. Kinda hard to get a good gauge on what to expect from him if he were to be traded to the Cubs.

[UMFan83]

The fact that most pitchers do pitch a little worse on the road has persuaded me to temper my lack of enthusiasm for 2009 Peavy.

 

It remains for 2009 Harden and Dempster.

 

SO I WIN?!?

 

(Just kidding)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The fact that most pitchers do pitch a little worse on the road has persuaded me to temper my lack of enthusiasm for 2009 Peavy.

 

It remains for 2009 Harden and Dempster.

 

SO I WIN?!?

 

(Just kidding)

 

I award you....

 

5.0

 

points.

[JWCUB]

The Cubs are speaking daily to the Padres about Jake Peavy. Rosenthal says the Orioles do not seem to be the third team at this time.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

So, who is the 3rd team?

[Clem Fandango]

So only 5-6 teams have comparable tops of the rotation, but we "lack dominance"? This is really a terrible argument.

 

I've also just realized I've spent the last 50 or so posts of mine arguing with people who don't think games in Petco Park are real.

 

So it's all just a big, flukey coincidence that he's pitched so above-averagishly on the road and awesomely at home.

 

roy halladay's road ERA is 0.05 better than peavy's

 

marcum, this stud who is comparable to zambrano, peavy and harden? 4.11

 

litsch? 4.00

 

They pitch in the AL East, so a 4.11 road ERA there is like having a 0.67 road ERA in the NL, because the NL is a cake walk of a league

[Guest]

Peavy has better than a strikeout per inning average across his career and has better than a 3-1 K/BB ratio. Those ratios stay pretty consistent in all of his seasons. You can argue that he won't be as homer-proof away from Petco (and be right), but his peripherals all suggest he should still be one of the best pitchers in MLB whether he's in Wrigley or anywhere else.

 

His HR rate isn't the only peripheral that dips on the road.

 

K/IP: .925

BB/IP: 0.363

K/BB: 2.54

 

ALL his peripherals take a big dip outside of San Diego.

Do me a favor and tell me how those rank amongst mlb starters during that timeframe.

 

That's a lot of datamining.

 

Point is, you pointed some thresholds out that I'm pointing out he can't cross on the road.

No...the point is that even his road peripherals are dominant and amongst the best in all of baseball.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/splits.aspx?playerid=1051&position=P&page=1&split=ha&type=full

http://www.fangraphs.com/splits.aspx?playerid=1051&position=P&page=2&split=ha&type=full

http://www.fangraphs.com/splits.aspx?playerid=1051&position=P&page=4&split=ha&type=full

 

How does fangraph calculate it's "good" and "poor" labels?

I'm not sure, but there's only a handful of starters each year that strikeout that many per inning - let alone strike out that many with that high a k/bb ratio. For instance, last year there were exactly 7 pitchers that went 180+ and had a k/ip of .925 and a k/bb of 2.54 or higher. In 2007, there were ten (including Peavy) (the only one that did it both years was Vazquez, for those wondering why ATL likes him so much). In 2006, there were four pitchers - including Peavy & Z. Santana was the only other repeat. In 2005, there were seven again - once again it was Peavy (Johan & Unit being the other repeaters).

 

Basically, if you're taking just Peavy's road splits, his peripherals are arguably the best in baseball over the past four years. Certainly in the top 5 pitchers in baseball.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not sure, but there's only a handful of starters each year that strikeout that many per inning - let alone strike out that many with that high a k/bb ratio. For instance, last year there were exactly 7 pitchers that went 180+ and had a k/ip of .925 and a k/bb of 2.54 or higher. In 2007, there were ten (including Peavy) (the only one that did it both years was Vazquez, for those wondering why ATL likes him so much). In 2006, there were four pitchers - including Peavy & Z. Santana was the only other repeat. In 2005, there were seven again - once again it was Peavy (Johan & Unit being the other repeaters).

 

Basically, if you're taking just Peavy's road splits, his peripherals are arguably the best in baseball over the past four years. Certainly in the top 5 pitchers in baseball.

 

Only his K's. His BBs and HRs are not.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Cubs are speaking daily to the Padres about Jake Peavy. Rosenthal says the Orioles do not seem to be the third team at this time.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

So, who is the 3rd team?

 

This is just so annoying. 1 day its off, 1 day its on. I wish there was a way for me to just get the thought of it out of my head. Its going to drive me insane.

[Guest]

I'm not sure, but there's only a handful of starters each year that strikeout that many per inning - let alone strike out that many with that high a k/bb ratio. For instance, last year there were exactly 7 pitchers that went 180+ and had a k/ip of .925 and a k/bb of 2.54 or higher. In 2007, there were ten (including Peavy) (the only one that did it both years was Vazquez, for those wondering why ATL likes him so much). In 2006, there were four pitchers - including Peavy & Z. Santana was the only other repeat. In 2005, there were seven again - once again it was Peavy (Johan & Unit being the other repeaters).

 

Basically, if you're taking just Peavy's road splits, his peripherals are arguably the best in baseball over the past four years. Certainly in the top 5 pitchers in baseball.

 

Only his K's. His BBs and HRs are not.

I double count K's for a pitcher. I don't look at walk rates independently, I look at them in ratio to the strikeouts as a measure of command. It's easy to have a low walk rate if you throw it down the middle. Peavy is very good in that measure.

 

He's also excellent a pure strikeout rates - his stuff is incredibly good. Right there with Santana (and Harden) as the best in baseball.

 

The HR rate is the only concern I have for him leaving Petco. But even considering that, he's a top 10 pitcher even just considering his road splits.

[Jehrico]

I agree on the other points, but I think you are undervaluing Peavy.

 

Road ERA by season

 

2008: 4.28

2007: 2.57

2006: 4.57

2005: 2.98

2004: 2.33

 

It should also be noted that in 2006 and 2008 Peavy was rumored to be pitching through pain and injuries. So which is the fluke 06 and 08 or 04, 05 and 07?

 

Fun with arbitrary endpoints.

 

2003: 4.59

2002: 6.23

 

I'm much more inclined to say 04, 05, and 07 are the "flukes" (if we must cherrypick) than 02, 03, 06 and 08. The career totals tell a story that can't be brushed off as easily as rumors of arm problems.

I know I'm a little late catching up on this one, but are you really going to use Peavy's 2002 and 2003 season against him? He was 21 and 22 that year. Most of his peers were in high A while he was in MLB, unless they were good, then maybe they were in AA. Starting with 2004 isnt' arbitrary. It's when he started coming into his own in the league, something many good pitchers don't do until they're as old as he is now. People forget how young he is. He's younger than Rich Hill.

[BigbadB]

I agree on the other points, but I think you are undervaluing Peavy.

 

Road ERA by season

 

2008: 4.28

2007: 2.57

2006: 4.57

2005: 2.98

2004: 2.33

 

It should also be noted that in 2006 and 2008 Peavy was rumored to be pitching through pain and injuries. So which is the fluke 06 and 08 or 04, 05 and 07?

 

Fun with arbitrary endpoints.

 

2003: 4.59

2002: 6.23

 

I'm much more inclined to say 04, 05, and 07 are the "flukes" (if we must cherrypick) than 02, 03, 06 and 08. The career totals tell a story that can't be brushed off as easily as rumors of arm problems.

 

I didn't include 2002 and 2003 because they were the first 2 years in his career, one of which he made only 17 starts, and they weren't played at Petco Park, nullifying any H/R comparison not because they didn't fit my argument.

 

Besides, in 2002 he had a 3.57 ERA at home and a 4.59 ERA on the road in 2003 and 2.56 ERA at home and a 6.23 ERA on the road in 2002, without the benefit of cozy dimensions and marine layer. So is the problem that he can't pitch on the road in general then?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Padres were not playing at Petco Park in 2002.

[Ski]

The Cubs are speaking daily to the Padres about Jake Peavy. Rosenthal says the Orioles do not seem to be the third team at this time.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

So, who is the 3rd team?

The Cardinals

[wade]

Kyle....Would you agree with this statement?

 

By adding Peavy, the Cubs have the "potential" to have the most dominate staff in baseball.

 

I'm not Kyle, but I disagree with that statement as worded.

[Rob]

Kyle....Would you agree with this statement?

 

By adding Peavy, the Cubs have the "potential" to have the most dominate staff in baseball.

 

I'm not Kyle, but I disagree with that statement as worded.

 

I really wish people would learn the word "dominant." Life would be so much easier...

[wade]

Kyle....Would you agree with this statement?

 

By adding Peavy, the Cubs have the "potential" to have the most dominate staff in baseball.

 

I'm not Kyle, but I disagree with that statement as worded.

 

I really wish people would learn the word "dominant." Life would be so much easier...

 

I feel like a jerk in some ways for calling it out, but it drives me freaking crazy.

[wade]

Oh, and am I nuts, or don't most players have better stats at home?

[BigbadB]

I'm interested in knowing why Dempster is bound to regress from his 2008 season. Was it the full season workload that he hasn't experienced in years? Is it the fact that the ink is now dry on his long term deal? I suppose these can be legitimate concerns, but I don't understand the assumption attached to Dempster's future as a starter as one that will regress.

 

If he went out there and had a few good outings in '08, I could be more understanding. Instead, he had many, many good outings. There comes a point where it's no longer a fluke.

 

I'm not penciling him in as the top starter on a team with a long list of potential #1 starters. But, why is everyone so convinced Dempster is going to tank this year?

[ChiCubsFan]

I'm interested in knowing why Dempster is bound to regress from his 2008 season. Was it the full season workload that he hasn't experienced in years? Is it the fact that the ink is now dry on his long term deal? I suppose these can be legitimate concerns, but I don't understand the assumption attached to Dempster's future as a starter as one that will regress.

 

If he went out there and had a few good outings in '08, I could be more understanding. Instead, he had many, many good outings. There comes a point where it's no longer a fluke.

 

I'm not penciling him in as the top starter on a team with a long list of potential #1 starters. But, why is everyone so convinced Dempster is going to tank this year?

 

I agree with you on this. I don't think Dempster is the type of person who is gonna work any less now that he has a big new contract. He may not repeat his 08 season, but I don't think the regression will be as severe as many people are nearly assuming it to be.

[Guest]

I'm interested in knowing why Dempster is bound to regress from his 2008 season. Was it the full season workload that he hasn't experienced in years? Is it the fact that the ink is now dry on his long term deal? I suppose these can be legitimate concerns, but I don't understand the assumption attached to Dempster's future as a starter as one that will regress.

 

If he went out there and had a few good outings in '08, I could be more understanding. Instead, he had many, many good outings. There comes a point where it's no longer a fluke.

 

I'm not penciling him in as the top starter on a team with a long list of potential #1 starters. But, why is everyone so convinced Dempster is going to tank this year?

Well, to begin with, regression to the mean is almost always a good assumption. Then add in age, difference in workload, etc. and it becomes an even even better one in this case.

[17 Seconds]

damnit, i got home and saw like 6 new pages added to this thread so i thought something good was happening. of course it was just kylejrm being ridiculous again

 

keep in mind this is the same guy who started a big argument about whether or not rick astley jumping out of a macy's day parade float constituted a rickroll

[JWCUB]

Kyle....Would you agree with this statement?

 

By adding Peavy, the Cubs have the "potential" to have the most dominate staff in baseball.

 

I'm not Kyle, but I disagree with that statement as worded.

 

I really wish people would learn the word "dominant." Life would be so much easier...

 

Sorry that my spelling is not up to your standards. I'm sure you've never made any mistakes. ;)

[17 Seconds]

by the way, I saw the mlbtraderumors entry about Olney saying they had a "basic framework in place" or whatever, but the olney blog he linked to had nothing about peavy.

 

what's the deal?

[wade]

I'm interested in knowing why Dempster is bound to regress from his 2008 season. Was it the full season workload that he hasn't experienced in years? Is it the fact that the ink is now dry on his long term deal? I suppose these can be legitimate concerns, but I don't understand the assumption attached to Dempster's future as a starter as one that will regress.

 

If he went out there and had a few good outings in '08, I could be more understanding. Instead, he had many, many good outings. There comes a point where it's no longer a fluke.

 

I'm not penciling him in as the top starter on a team with a long list of potential #1 starters. But, why is everyone so convinced Dempster is going to tank this year?

Well, to begin with, regression to the mean is almost always a good assumption. Then add in age, difference in workload, etc. and it becomes an even even better one in this case.

 

Yeah, Dempster's always been sorta wild and last year he really cut down on that (the one playoff game notwithstanding). I'm def. afraid he'll walk more people in 2009, which will make it very hard to duplicate 2008.

[Ski]

I'm interested in knowing why Dempster is bound to regress from his 2008 season. Was it the full season workload that he hasn't experienced in years? Is it the fact that the ink is now dry on his long term deal? I suppose these can be legitimate concerns, but I don't understand the assumption attached to Dempster's future as a starter as one that will regress.

 

If he went out there and had a few good outings in '08, I could be more understanding. Instead, he had many, many good outings. There comes a point where it's no longer a fluke.

 

I'm not penciling him in as the top starter on a team with a long list of potential #1 starters. But, why is everyone so convinced Dempster is going to tank this year?

Well, to begin with, regression to the mean is almost always a good assumption. Then add in age, difference in workload, etc. and it becomes an even even better one in this case.

 

Yeah, Dempster's always been sorta wild and last year he really cut down on that (the one playoff game notwithstanding). I'm def. afraid he'll walk more people in 2009, which will make it very hard to duplicate 2008.

I thought Dempster walked too many people in the beginning of the season. Of course, that could just be me happening to watch the wrong games he pitched.

[Cubswin11]

by the way, I saw the mlbtraderumors entry about Olney saying they had a "basic framework in place" or whatever, but the olney blog he linked to had nothing about peavy.

 

what's the deal?

It's in the insider portion, so you have to be an ESPN insider to view it. This is the link to the start of the article but you can't access the Peavy portion/the whole thing without an insider account.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3744124&name=olney_buster&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3744124%26name%3dolney_buster