I know it's just the worthless Nationals, but ...

[dew1679666265]

Marshall is about the same, Gregg is a little better. Marmol has always been a good bet to regress, I'm surprised he's not regressed further. Heilman is better than last year, but below his career to that point, right where plexiglass principle says he should be. Guzman has a career ERA+ of 90 and WHIP of 1.504. He's putting up 176 and 1.073 to this point, and at his age and arm history, I think "washed up" was a good projection for him.

 

All in all, I'd say yes, we've gotten much better than we had a right to expect out of our bullpen.

 

Lilly is currently 15 points of ERA+ ahead of his career best. At 33 years old, I'd say that's a pretty big surprise.

 

A 27 year old who's battled injuries is washed up? I thought 26-27 was just about the start of prime years - when a player is expected to really improve. If Guzman was 30 years old, then I could understand saying he's washed up, but he's at an age that improvement can be expected. Couple that with him finally staying healthy and you have him living up to expectations. You could say we've been lucky that he hasn't been injured much, but the performance could have been expected from a player who is a top prospect just now hitting his prime.

 

But even if you assume Guzman is significantly better than expected, then he just cancels out Marmol's regression. Then Gregg is a little better now than the last couple years and Heilman has a better ERA and a worse WHIP. The fact that he's walking significantly more than last year and striking out significantly less is just as much a sign of his performance as his ERA+, which is still much worse than it was in 2007. His expected performance shouldn't be based only off of last year, his much better 2005-2007 seasons should be taken into account somehow.

 

 

 

I'm not saying the Cubs can't win the division from this point. But in order to play better than they have at this point, I think they need a lot more things to go right than just showing up.

[illiniguy]

Don't you have to apply all this logic to the other teams too though?

 

What are the odds Ryan Franklin remains this good? Joel Piniero?

 

How about Casey McGhee? Craig Counsell?

 

I'm not so sure 89 wins doesn't win this division by a few games.

 

Sure we can.

 

I'd project a lot worse out of Franklin, but a lot more out of Motte. Lohse and Wellenmeyer look like they could be better, too.

 

On offense, the Cardinals have a ton of replaceable black holes where they could gain quite a bit of ground. As a team, they've gotten .211 .284 .324 from 3b, and .214 .299 .340. Unlike the Cubs, who will be trotting Soriano out there no matter what, the Cardinals look like they are in good position to upgrade those holes.

 

The only question for them is whether Pujols can keep it up. I think we've been lucky for a few years that they haven't been better, because Albert Pujols and 24 decent players gives you a competitive team with even a little bit of luck. If he keeps hitting like this, I see no reason they can't keep up their current pace. And if they do that, the Cubs will have to really turn it on to pass them.

I can see where the Cards being able to address those holes, while we only have Soriano is an advantage to them. I think people have been burnt so many times by the Cubs that they are conditioned to expect the worst and vice versa the best for the Cardinals. Also per your take on Guzman, which I agree with, Carpenter???

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Injuries are always a significant drag on projections. 27 or not, if you have been hurt repeatedly, you will probably be hurt again, and it will eventually have an effect on your performance when you are healthy. ZIPS, for example, projected Guzman to 23 innings pitched and a 5.09 ERA. If anyone has any preseason projections on Guzman that showed something significantly better, I'd love to see them.

 

Plus, I wouldn't call 27 a breakout age. It's a prime year in the sense that a player will usually be at their peak, but the ones who will have success in the big leagues have usually broken through at some point before that.

 

With regards to the Cardinals, yes Carpenter is ahead of projection by quite a bit as well. I'm not denying that they've outperformed projections.

[illiniguy]

Injuries are always a significant drag on projections. 27 or not, if you have been hurt repeatedly, you will probably be hurt again, and it will eventually have an effect on your performance when you are healthy. ZIPS, for example, projected Guzman to 23 innings pitched and a 5.09 ERA. If anyone has any preseason projections on Guzman that showed something significantly better, I'd love to see them.

 

Plus, I wouldn't call 27 a breakout age. It's a prime year in the sense that a player will usually be at their peak, but the ones who will have success in the big leagues have usually broken through at some point before that.

 

With regards to the Cardinals, yes Carpenter is ahead of projection by quite a bit as well. I'm not denying that they've outperformed projections.

So if we shouldn't expect huge upgrades from our guys, should we really expect the Cardinals to continue to perform at higher than expected levels? Or would it be more reasonable to think that they are going to regress? Hell even Pujols should regress a bit.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So if we shouldn't expect huge upgrades from our guys, should we really expect the Cardinals to continue to perform at higher than expected levels? Or would it be more reasonable to think that they are going to regress? Hell even Pujols should regress a bit.

 

Yes, I expect the Cardinals to regress as currently constituted. As I mentioned earlier, I'd take the Cubs over the Cardinals if I could be promised that both rosters stayed the same the rest of the season.

 

The problems are:

 

1) The Cubs and Cardinals aren't the only two teams in the division. I'd take the Cubs over any one team in the field, but I'd take the field as a whole over the Cubs.

 

2) The Cardinals seem much more intent than the Cubs on improving at the deadline, which would balance out the projection.

 

3) Two games in hand is nothing to sneeze at.

[dew1679666265]

Injuries are always a significant drag on projections. 27 or not, if you have been hurt repeatedly, you will probably be hurt again, and it will eventually have an effect on your performance when you are healthy. ZIPS, for example, projected Guzman to 23 innings pitched and a 5.09 ERA. If anyone has any preseason projections on Guzman that showed something significantly better, I'd love to see them.

 

Plus, I wouldn't call 27 a breakout age. It's a prime year in the sense that a player will usually be at their peak, but the ones who will have success in the big leagues have usually broken through at some point before that.

 

With regards to the Cardinals, yes Carpenter is ahead of projection by quite a bit as well. I'm not denying that they've outperformed projections.

 

Is last year more indicative of Lohse or the rest of his career (7 years)? He was much better last year, but so far this year he's been right in line with the rest of his career. I'll agree Wellemeyer should be better, but Piniero has been much better this year than he has been since he pitched 17 games in 2002.

 

As for Guzman, like I said even if he is overperforming this year, he cancels out Marmol's underperformance, which leaves the bullpen right around where they should be.

[illiniguy]

So if we shouldn't expect huge upgrades from our guys, should we really expect the Cardinals to continue to perform at higher than expected levels? Or would it be more reasonable to think that they are going to regress? Hell even Pujols should regress a bit.

 

Yes, I expect the Cardinals to regress as currently constituted. As I mentioned earlier, I'd take the Cubs over the Cardinals if I could be promised that both rosters stayed the same the rest of the season.

 

The problems are:

 

1) The Cubs and Cardinals aren't the only two teams in the division. I'd take the Cubs over any one team in the field, but I'd take the field as a whole over the Cubs.

 

2) The Cardinals seem much more intent than the Cubs on improving at the deadline, which would balance out the projection.

 

3) Two games in hand is nothing to sneeze at.

I guess that's true, but I cannot see anyway that the other teams really step in and win the division. The Brewers have out perfromed what they should do up to this point. The Astros could be a problem if they had any pitching other than Wandy and Roy. As for the two game lead that's one more good week away from being gone. There is a reason the Cards are trying a lot harder to improve their team than we are, they know they need to.

Edited July 20, 2009 by illiniguy

[SouthSideRyan]

Because Kyle, you're expecting some absurd regression from Marmol based on the fact that he sucked as a starter 3 years ago. You think Angel Guzman's major league career should be over because he's been injury prone. It's ridiculous.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because Kyle, you're expecting some absurd regression from Marmol based on the fact that he sucked as a starter 3 years ago. You think Angel Guzman's major league career should be over because he's been injury prone. It's ridiculous.

 

So, at some point, you are going to produce a different pre-season projection from Guzman that proves how ridiculous mine is? I've already shown a popular one that agreed with me.

[illiniguy]

Because Kyle, you're expecting some absurd regression from Marmol based on the fact that he sucked as a starter 3 years ago. You think Angel Guzman's major league career should be over because he's been injury prone. It's ridiculous.

 

So, at some point, you are going to produce a different pre-season projection from Guzman that proves how ridiculous mine is? I've already shown a popular one that agreed with me.

Isn't Guzman like every other prospect that came up and struggled at first, then got better? Carlos Quentin comes to mind. He was always very highly thought of coming up, some like him better than Z. The issue was always staying healthy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because Kyle, you're expecting some absurd regression from Marmol based on the fact that he sucked as a starter 3 years ago. You think Angel Guzman's major league career should be over because he's been injury prone. It's ridiculous.

 

So, at some point, you are going to produce a different pre-season projection from Guzman that proves how ridiculous mine is? I've already shown a popular one that agreed with me.

Isn't Guzman like every other prospect that came up and struggled at first, then got better? Carlos Quentin comes to mind. He was always very highly thought of coming up, some like him better than Z. The issue was always staying healthy.

 

He's also like the hundreds of pitching prospects who had good arms but could never get healthy and ended up with nothing more than a cup of coffee.

[illiniguy]

Because Kyle, you're expecting some absurd regression from Marmol based on the fact that he sucked as a starter 3 years ago. You think Angel Guzman's major league career should be over because he's been injury prone. It's ridiculous.

 

So, at some point, you are going to produce a different pre-season projection from Guzman that proves how ridiculous mine is? I've already shown a popular one that agreed with me.

Isn't Guzman like every other prospect that came up and struggled at first, then got better? Carlos Quentin comes to mind. He was always very highly thought of coming up, some like him better than Z. The issue was always staying healthy.

 

He's also like the hundreds of pitching prospects who had good arms but could never get healthy and ended up with nothing more than a cup of coffee.

Right, but once they do get up and stay healthy they generally do ok. Look at Carpenter again. I can't speak to this as well as others could, I thikn Raisin really loved Guz, but he was an amazing prospect.

[SouthSideRyan]

Because Kyle, you're expecting some absurd regression from Marmol based on the fact that he sucked as a starter 3 years ago. You think Angel Guzman's major league career should be over because he's been injury prone. It's ridiculous.

 

So, at some point, you are going to produce a different pre-season projection from Guzman that proves how ridiculous mine is? I've already shown a popular one that agreed with me.

 

You missed my point entirely. The point is projections such as ZiPS don't accurately judge players like Guzman because they're all about plugging in the #s and comparing them across the board. Dan isn't putting in tweaks that so and so was injured while putting up these ghastly #s. Add in that there is such little recent data to work with for Gooz, and you wind up with a 5.00 ERA projection (as a starter) because a guy had been hurt.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because Kyle, you're expecting some absurd regression from Marmol based on the fact that he sucked as a starter 3 years ago. You think Angel Guzman's major league career should be over because he's been injury prone. It's ridiculous.

 

So, at some point, you are going to produce a different pre-season projection from Guzman that proves how ridiculous mine is? I've already shown a popular one that agreed with me.

 

You missed my point entirely. The point is projections such as ZiPS don't accurately judge players like Guzman because they're all about plugging in the #s and comparing them across the board. Dan isn't putting in tweaks that so and so was injured while putting up these ghastly #s. Add in that there is such little recent data to work with for Gooz, and you wind up with a 5.00 ERA projection (as a starter) because a guy had been hurt.

 

And my point is that the historical results for 27-year-olds with good arms but constant injuries is more than a little ghastly.

[SouthSideRyan]

Because Kyle, you're expecting some absurd regression from Marmol based on the fact that he sucked as a starter 3 years ago. You think Angel Guzman's major league career should be over because he's been injury prone. It's ridiculous.

 

So, at some point, you are going to produce a different pre-season projection from Guzman that proves how ridiculous mine is? I've already shown a popular one that agreed with me.

 

You missed my point entirely. The point is projections such as ZiPS don't accurately judge players like Guzman because they're all about plugging in the #s and comparing them across the board. Dan isn't putting in tweaks that so and so was injured while putting up these ghastly #s. Add in that there is such little recent data to work with for Gooz, and you wind up with a 5.00 ERA projection (as a starter) because a guy had been hurt.

 

And my point is that the historical results for 27-year-olds with good arms but constant injuries is more than a little ghastly.

 

If you're including guys who never get healthy then yes, it's horrific. If you're limiting it to guys who didn't have nagging arm injuries the rest of their careers, then I'm willing to bet it's less than ghastly.

[Guest]

So if we shouldn't expect huge upgrades from our guys, should we really expect the Cardinals to continue to perform at higher than expected levels? Or would it be more reasonable to think that they are going to regress? Hell even Pujols should regress a bit.

 

Yes, I expect the Cardinals to regress as currently constituted. As I mentioned earlier, I'd take the Cubs over the Cardinals if I could be promised that both rosters stayed the same the rest of the season.

 

The problems are:

 

1) The Cubs and Cardinals aren't the only two teams in the division. I'd take the Cubs over any one team in the field, but I'd take the field as a whole over the Cubs.

 

2) The Cardinals seem much more intent than the Cubs on improving at the deadline, which would balance out the projection.

 

3) Two games in hand is nothing to sneeze at.

I guess that's true, but I cannot see anyway that the other teams really step in and win the division. The Brewers have out perfromed what they should do up to this point. The Astros could be a problem if they had any pitching other than Wandy and Roy. As for the two game lead that's one more good week away from being gone. There is a reason the Cards are trying a lot harder to improve their team than we are, they know they need to.

 

What I believe he's saying is that even if you think the Cubs are a 40% or so shot to win the Division, that still means it's 60% that they won't. They'd still be the favorite under this scenario but the odds would be against them to win the division.

[dew1679666265]

What I believe he's saying is that even if you think the Cubs are a 40% or so shot to win the Division, that still means it's 60% that they won't. They'd still be the favorite under this scenario but the odds would be against them to win the division.

 

The problem with that, though, is that a team must win the division. The "field" can't win, so the 60% likelihood that it wins means nothing.

 

If the Cubs have a 40% chance to win, the Cards have a 35% chance, the Brewers have a 10% chance, the Astros have a 5% chance, the Reds have a 7% chance and the Pirates have a 3% chance, then the Cubs are still the favorites even though all the other teams combined have a 60% chance of winning.

[Guest]

What I believe he's saying is that even if you think the Cubs are a 40% or so shot to win the Division, that still means it's 60% that they won't. They'd still be the favorite under this scenario but the odds would be against them to win the division.

 

The problem with that, though, is that a team must win the division. The "field" can't win, so the 60% likelihood that it wins means nothing.

 

If the Cubs have a 40% chance to win, the Cards have a 35% chance, the Brewers have a 10% chance, the Astros have a 5% chance, the Reds have a 7% chance and the Pirates have a 3% chance, then the Cubs are still the favorites even though all the other teams combined have a 60% chance of winning.

 

But it doesn't mean nothing. It means that the odds are better that the Cubs don't win the division than the odds that they do, even though looking at the teams individually (as we agree) the Cubs are the favorite to win in the scenario listed above.

 

A team can be favored to win something but still have the odds of them not winning it be better than the odds of them winning it. The two things are not mutually exclusive in three or more team scenarios like this one.

[dew1679666265]

What I believe he's saying is that even if you think the Cubs are a 40% or so shot to win the Division, that still means it's 60% that they won't. They'd still be the favorite under this scenario but the odds would be against them to win the division.

 

The problem with that, though, is that a team must win the division. The "field" can't win, so the 60% likelihood that it wins means nothing.

 

If the Cubs have a 40% chance to win, the Cards have a 35% chance, the Brewers have a 10% chance, the Astros have a 5% chance, the Reds have a 7% chance and the Pirates have a 3% chance, then the Cubs are still the favorites even though all the other teams combined have a 60% chance of winning.

 

But it doesn't mean nothing. It means that the odds are better that the Cubs don't win the division than the odds that they do, even though looking at the teams individually (as we agree) the Cubs are the favorite to win in the scenario listed above.

 

A team can be favored to win something but still have the odds of them not winning it be better than the odds of them winning it. The two things are not mutually exclusive in three or more team scenarios like this one.

 

It's just a weird way to look at it, I think. A team must win the division. The Cubs have the best chance to win the division out of all the teams in the division. Does that mean they will? No, but they are still the most likely of the six teams to win the division. That's the point.

[Guest]

It's basically a glass half empty/glass half full sort of a thing.

 

Glass half full: The Cubs have the best chance to win the division.

Glass half empty: The odds are better the Cubs won't win the division than the odds that they will.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's also weird to consider the Pirates, Astros, or Reds having an actual chance at winning the division.

[dew1679666265]

It's basically a glass half empty/glass half full sort of a thing.

 

Glass half full: The Cubs have the best chance to win the division.

Glass half empty: The odds are better the Cubs won't win the division than the odds that they will.

 

Yeah, I can see that. It's similar to the discussions about taking Tiger Woods or the field, I guess. You've got 100 (or whatever) chances of winning by taking the field, but only one chance to be right by taking Tiger. However, Tiger is the heavy favorite if you look at individuals.

 

I just don't see the value in it, I guess.

[Vanilla Ice]

You should not discount Ramirez's injury because "it is reasonable to expect at least one major injury per season". The fact is that he represents a big upgrade over what we had at third base for the first half and raises the talent level of the Cubs for the second half.

 

Assuming he can stay healthy. And assuming that no one else gets hurt and we lose just as much. This team has no depth at all.

 

We've gotten a .262 .332 .435 line from our 3b this season. That's not what Ramirez would put up, but it's not like it's been a black hole.

Losing Ramirez also downgraded 2B

[Little Slide Rooter]

You should not discount Ramirez's injury because "it is reasonable to expect at least one major injury per season". The fact is that he represents a big upgrade over what we had at third base for the first half and raises the talent level of the Cubs for the second half.

 

Assuming he can stay healthy. And assuming that no one else gets hurt and we lose just as much. This team has no depth at all.

 

We've gotten a .262 .332 .435 line from our 3b this season. That's not what Ramirez would put up, but it's not like it's been a black hole.

Losing Ramirez also downgraded 2B

 

We had to move Font to 3rd, which was a significant downgrade for Ramirez, and then had to juggle Miles, Freel, Scales, and Blanco at 2nd, which was in fact a black hole.

[17 Seconds]

This is why you don't get excited about sweeping a team that everybody sweeps.

 

The Cubs are an average team, period.