Cubs trade Heilman

[Guest]

I agree with everything TT said. Except Hart. I don't think he'll do anything good for the Cubs next year. :)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I agree with everything TT said. Except Hart. I don't think he'll do anything good for the Cubs next year. :)

 

There's a AAAA joke that has been made too many times. Okay, cut the list to 12 guys instead of 13.

[illiniguy]

Why doesn't Jim understand that there is no need to pay big money to middle relievers? Have any of those signings turned out well for him yet?

[cubsfan26]

We already have Marmol and Guzman on board on the back end,

 

Well we can't exactly expect Guzman to be healthy all season.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

We already have Marmol and Guzman on board on the back end,

 

Well we can't exactly expect Guzman to be healthy all season.

 

No more than we can expect Grabow to be any good.

[Guancous]

Here's the most important question: Is this haul better than the potential August deadline return last year?

[cubsfan26]

No more than we can expect Grabow to be any good.

 

That makes no sense because Grabow had success the last two years, while Guzman spent a good amount of time on the DL over the last two years. So really it's not close at all. Look I'm all for following stats and everything. But we can't just say a guy sucks or will suck, when he didn't suck. Yes his high WHIP shows that there's a chance his success as been luck. But when a guy does it two years in a row. There becomes a point were you have to consider that the guy is one of those rare guys who gets good results even though he allows a good amount of base runners. Everything isn't always cut and dry in baseball. Sometimes things don't make sense, but it still works. There still is no perfect stat system or perfect way to predict a player performance for a reason. Put it this way, if Grabow has a simliar 2010 as he did in 08 and 09. Is it still luck? When does it not become luck?

Edited November 20, 2009 by cubsfan26

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The last two years, Grabow has put up a 7.2 K/9, 4.7 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9, and 1.34 WHIP. He hasn't been very good at all.

[17 Seconds]

No more than we can expect Grabow to be any good.

 

But when a guy does it two years in a row. There becomes a point were you have to consider that the guy is one of those rare guys who gets good results even though he allows a good amount of base runners.

 

No. If he does it 2 years in a row it just means he's more likely to have it catch up to him.

 

Seriously, stop using ERA to justify this. It's the only thing you have to go on and it's weak.

 

 

And is it going to be like last offseason when you blindly defend every bad move Hendry makes, and then yell at people who criticize him because we have to "give the moves a chance"? Apparently it is, considering you keep trying to talk Grabow up based on a single stat that in no way shows how good or effective he was.

[17 Seconds]

The last two years, Grabow has put up a 7.2 K/9, 4.7 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9, and 1.34 WHIP. He hasn't been very good at all.

 

but era

[cubsfan26]

The last two years, Grabow has put up a 7.2 K/9, 4.7 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9, and 1.34 WHIP. He hasn't been very good at all.

 

How many runs did he allow score when he pitched? That doesn't matter? Plus the fact that when he came into games with runners on base he pitches very well as well. For whatever reason he seems to focus much more when guys are on base. I don't know how to explain it but worked for him. Doing it one season might be a fluke in my eyes, but doing it two years in a row tells me something else.

 

but era

 

Why is era not important? Doesn't letting runs score and not score matter the most in games? I understand alot of his stats say normally he can't keep it up. But thats not always the case, and two years in a row the guy has done the most important thing and not let alot of runs score off him. I think alot of fans get too into the stats sometimes and it effects there judgement on if the guy is getting the job done or not. From watching Grabow last season I'm confident if he pitches anything like that again he will be fine. Also if you looked at the Grabow thread I'm not defending this move. I thought Hendry overpaid by 1.5-2m on this deal. But I think Grabow has been gotten good results the last two years and know he would have gotten a 2y 5.5-6m type of contract from a bunch of teams this offseason. That doesn't change the fact that Grabow has been a solid late inning reliever the last two years IMO.

[Post Count Padder]

Maine had decent numbers this year. BA said before the season that White could develop into a more powerful version of Sean Casey.

[inari]

The last two years, Grabow has put up a 7.2 K/9, 4.7 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9, and 1.34 WHIP. He hasn't been very good at all.

 

How many runs did he allow score when he pitched? That doesn't matter? Plus the fact that when he came into games with runners on base he pitches very well as well. For whatever reason he seems to focus much more when guys are on base. I don't know how to explain it but worked for him. Doing it one season might be a fluke in my eyes, but doing it two years in a row tells me something else.

 

 

It may tell you something, but it shouldn't. It's flukey and unsustainable. Putting IMO at the end doesn't excuse arguments that are based on flimsy and irrelevant arguments.

[17 Seconds]

Your entire argument is based around the fact that "he did it 2 years in a row, so it's not luck".

 

Do you know how often that happens with relievers? Yes, it's luck. John Grabow doesn't have magic powers that turn him into a better pitcher with runners on base. It's not like he's trying harder or something.

 

"Oh [expletive], I let a couple guys get on base. I completely forgot that I was supposed to get outs. Good thing this reminded me."

 

*strikes out the side*

 

Grabow’s FIP the last two years? 4.37, thanks to an atrociously high walk total. The entirety of his low ERA over the last two years is driven by an 82 percent rate of stranding runners, which is just not sustainable. He’s succeeded by putting men on base and then wiggling out of jams, but that’s not the same thing as pitching well.

 

It would be one thing if Grabow had developed this knack for stranding runners by elevating his strikeout rate, but he’s not any different now than he has been for his entire career.

 

Instead, he’s just posted artificially low BABIPs the last two years, and by not giving up hits, he was able to keep the guys he walked on the bases. That’s not a recipe for success.

 

Grabow is a generic left-handed middle reliever, the kind of guy you’re fine having for the league minimum but that you don’t really want to pay any real money to. He’s eminently replaceable, but the Cubs have decided to commit real money to him over multiple years because he has a low ERA.

 

ERA is close to useless when determining how effective/good a reliever has been, and Grabow is a perfect example of why.

[A-Cal]

this same general argument pops up, what, every 3 or so months?

 

:shock:

[cubsfan26]

It's flukey and unsustainable

 

How long will it be flukey and unsustainable? Is it still flukey if Grabow has simliar era's the next two years? Like I said before there becomes a time when something isn't a fluke anymore. Would Grabow be the first reliever with simliar stats to not have a good run of success in baseball? Yes I know most of the time it is, but not always. Thats why there is no perfect stats to say how good or bad a guy is.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

He's a reliever. Very often, he leaves runners in the hands of other pitchers, or is entrusted with runners from other relievers. Even more important, Grabow has thrown less than 150 innings the last two years. Very often starting pitchers have fluke years in ERA in more IP than that. This is even more obvious in Grabow's case because every other performance measure is mediocre and in line with what he's done his whole career.

[inari]

It's flukey and unsustainable

 

How long will it be flukey and unsustainable? Is it still flukey if Grabow has simliar era's the next two years? Like I said before there becomes a time when something isn't a fluke anymore. Would Grabow be the first reliever with simliar stats to not have a good run of success in baseball? Yes I know most of the time it is, but not always. Thats why there is no perfect stats to say how good or bad a guy is.

 

Yes, yes, yes. Assuming his peripheral stats are the same, anyway.

Edited November 20, 2009 by inari

[17 Seconds]

lolol

[17 Seconds]

It's flukey and unsustainable

 

Like I said before there becomes a time when something isn't a fluke anymore.

 

Ok if he does this for the next 8 years in a row, we can talk.

 

Deal?

[cubsfan26]

Do you know how often that happens with relievers? Yes, it's luck. John Grabow doesn't have magic powers that turn him into a better pitcher with runners on base. It's not like he's trying harder or something.

 

We will see if it's luck, but at some point we can't say it's luck anymore. I understand he doesn't get magic powers with guys on base. But baseball is a human game played by humans. Focus is a big of the game. Of course he's trying just as hard with nobody on base. But when guys are on base he can focus better because he has no margin for error. Just like some closers focus and pitch better in save situations then non save situations.

 

ERA is close to useless when determining how effective/good a reliever has been, and Grabow is a perfect example of why.

 

Ok thats your opinion, all I know is if Grabow has a simliar era next year he would have done his job. Because he didn't let alot of runs score. Which is all that matters late in the game when the Cubs are trying to win.

[inari]

This isn't an "opinion" thing going on right here. That's a copout excuse used when you can't support your argument or debunk the arguments of others using real evidence.

 

Your argument is reminiscent of one that would argue for the value of saves.

[cubsfan26]

This isn't an "opinion" thing going on right here. That's a copout excuse used when you can't support your argument or debunk the arguments of others using real evidence.

 

Real evidence of what? The guy didn't allow runs to score that you believe he should have or will. He now did it two years in a row, and at some point the excuse luck can't be the reason. In baseball there's no right answer or perfect systems. There's just opinions of what people think are the best. You gotta stop taking what you think is right as a fact because it's not. The fact that guys who perform better then what the "real evidence" says they should. Shows you that whatever system you think is the right answer is flawed. Year after year guys perform much better or much worse then the stat systems say they should. So like it or not but there is far from a perfect system. Look I'm a big stat guy and most of the time I agree with alot stat info people post on this board. But I also know alot of it's flawed so I'm not gonna disgard good results a guy gets in back to back seasons and call him crap because of some of the stat systems say he shouldn't be getting those results.

[Shilzzz]

Hendry, seriously, give up your argument. it's wrong. just because someone has a lexus in the driveway of a million dollar home in a quiet suburb does not mean he isn't in debt up to his ears. is it incorrect to drive by that house, take a glance, and think to yourself, that guy must be wealthy? no. but if you pull up to the house next door, and this neighbor is the accountant for said lexus driver and the accountant shows you every bank statement, collection letter, credit card account, and pay stub of the lexus driver, is it then incorrect to drive back by the house on your way out of the neighborhood thinking to yourself how wealthy the lexus driver is? yes. The entirety of a logic argument can not be based on a quick glance through the back of a baseball card or 8x8 fantasy league numbers. If you have access to a wealth of statistical data, your opinion becomes well informed to the point that you can separate the meat from the bones, if you will. ERA is not a horrible stat, there is just no way that ERA explains the breadth of a player's whole. Not giving up runs IS the point, in that you are correct, Jim, but the best way to figure out whether the pitcher is good or bad at giving up runs can be more completely explained through more advanced statistics such as FIP, ERA+, VORP, WAR, etc. ERA is an elementary stat, in the way that batting average doesn't explain just what a batter is giving you. No one here is trying to abuse you, but so long as you make straw man arguments that you won't back down from in the face of clear evidence which contradicts your point, it's better to use the information others are giving you so that next time you consider signing a relief pitcher to a 2 year, 7.5 million dollar contract, you think better of it. Okay Cubs26?

[Guest]

You know who was really awesome two years in a row? Carlos Marmol. Surely, he'll have an awesome 2009 season because he's already done it two years in a row, right?

 

Bob Howry was pretty good those first two years in Chicago, so surely he'll be awesome again in 2008, right?

 

Heck, Hendry is still trying to catch lightning in a bottle with Chad Fox, who might have put together two good seasons some time at the turn of the century.

 

If you honestly think every team does it, you aren't paying that close attention. Actually, it's kind of funny when you look at some guys stats at baseball-reference. A perfect example is Mike Remlinger, who didn't start pitching for the Cubs until he was 36 years old. The Cubs paid him almost 11m dollars over 3 years and Remlinger only made 18m over his entire 14 year career.

 

Think about that one for a minute. Oh, and Remlinger was kinda good for a couple years before he got his fat contract.