Constructing the 2012 Cubs

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Edit: Never mind, I'm an idiot who can't read a simple graph. Edited January 24, 2012 by Hairyducked Idiot

[KingCubsFan]

Barney's 2010 MLe: .295 .331 373

 

His minor-league performance predicted pretty much exactly what he's been in the majors. Maybe even a tiny bit better.

Do the same for 2009, 2008 and 2007. Outside of 74 games in AA, he was never that impressive. Putting up average numbers in the PCL doesn't do much for me, particularly when you're 25 and repeating the level.

[jersey cubs fan]

As far as Barney's offense goes...he was bad last year and he'll probably be bad this year. It wouldn't be that hard for him to match what he did last year but if he didn't, it's hard to see him doing so much worse that it'll be a significant hit for the for the offense to take.

 

Well, it might be hard for him to match it because it'll probably take another 800 OPS month, which is unlikely considering how quickly the league figured him out and how incapable he seems of adjusting. His post ASB OPS was 50 points lower than the overall. Even if such a drop is something an offense can theoretically absorb, it is a real decline and certainly something we might be seeing with him.

[jersey cubs fan]

Barney's 2010 MLe: .295 .331 373

 

His minor-league performance predicted pretty much exactly what he's been in the majors. Maybe even a tiny bit better.

 

What are you saying? His major league numbers are .271/.310/.345, that is across the board worse than the MLe you listed.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ignore that entire line of thought. I misread "raw stats" for "adjusted stats" on his MLE.

 

Anyway, I don't see why April doesn't count or why we shouldn't project Barney to hit pretty similarly to what he did last season, which wasn't nearly as bad as people seem to think.

[jersey cubs fan]

Ignore that entire line of thought. I misread "raw stats" for "adjusted stats" on his MLE.

 

Anyway, I don't see why April doesn't count or why we shouldn't project Barney to hit pretty similarly to what he did last season, which wasn't nearly as bad as people seem to think.

 

April counts, but it's still an outlier with 5 consecutive months of significantly worse performance. I don't get why people make the "why doesn't it count" argument when people bring up the rational point that he declined as he kept playing. He sucked with the bat last year. There's no reason to pretend otherwise. He was below average in comparison to all hitters and in comparison to 2B.

[KingCubsFan]

Ignore that entire line of thought. I misread "raw stats" for "adjusted stats" on his MLE.

 

Anyway, I don't see why April doesn't count or why we shouldn't project Barney to hit pretty similarly to what he did last season, which wasn't nearly as bad as people seem to think.

He had a .354 BABIP in April. You can't expect something like that again, particularly when he doesn't have great speed and that was his first month getting regular playing time in the majors.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He had a .354 BABIP in April. You can't expect something like that again, particularly when he doesn't have great speed and that was his first month getting regular playing time in the majors.

 

 

I don't see why we have to keep parsing out April vs. the rest of the season. The entire season counted, as far as I know, and it was all MLB competition.

 

How does he look if we just decide to not count June?

[Guest]

Ignore that entire line of thought. I misread "raw stats" for "adjusted stats" on his MLE.

 

Anyway, I don't see why April doesn't count or why we shouldn't project Barney to hit pretty similarly to what he did last season, which wasn't nearly as bad as people seem to think.

He had a .354 BABIP in April. You can't expect something like that again, particularly when he doesn't have great speed and that was his first month getting regular playing time in the majors.

 

you can probably expect it for certain stretches of the season.

 

how long they are and when they'd be is anybody's guess...but it's sort of silly to take a month's worth of BABIP out of a whole season and say you can't expect that one chunk to happen again. the whole idea is that stuff like that (really high or really low BABIPs) doesn't happen in the long term. it didn't. it'll definitely happen for stretches.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

April counts, but it's still an outlier with 5 consecutive months of significantly worse performance. I don't get why people make the "why doesn't it count" argument when people bring up the rational point that he declined as he kept playing. He sucked with the bat last year. There's no reason to pretend otherwise. He was below average in comparison to all hitters and in comparison to 2B.

 

 

His second best month was July. Ranking them by OPS, it was April, July, May, August, September, June.

 

I don't see a clear pattern there of declining as he kept playing. Like any hitter, he had some hot times and some slow times. His hottest time coming in April doesn't mean it should be disregarded, any more than a hot September means a guy has "figured it out."

[jersey cubs fan]

April counts, but it's still an outlier with 5 consecutive months of significantly worse performance. I don't get why people make the "why doesn't it count" argument when people bring up the rational point that he declined as he kept playing. He sucked with the bat last year. There's no reason to pretend otherwise. He was below average in comparison to all hitters and in comparison to 2B.

 

 

His second best month was July. Ranking them by OPS, it was April, July, May, August, September, June.

 

I don't see a clear pattern there of declining as he kept playing. Like any hitter, he had some hot times and some slow times. His hottest time coming in April doesn't mean it should be disregarded, any more than a hot September means a guy has "figured it out."

 

When it's a fairly middling prospect who outperforms expectations for one month at the outset of his career and then sucks the rest of the season there's no reason to pretend it was just another month in a long career. He sucked overall with the bat and he sucked major balls without April propping him up. He spent most of the season with a line that actually looked decent overall, which clouded some people's opinions about how he was doing along the way. But we're still just talking about a 26 year old with a 600+ PA supply of poor hitting.

[KingCubsFan]

He had a .354 BABIP in April. You can't expect something like that again, particularly when he doesn't have great speed and that was his first month getting regular playing time in the majors.

 

 

I don't see why we have to keep parsing out April vs. the rest of the season. The entire season counted, as far as I know, and it was all MLB competition.

 

How does he look if we just decide to not count June?

Because you have to look at it in the context of the rest of his career.

We once had a player put up the following one month line: 377 .406 .557 .963

In fact, he actually had a Barney-esque .295 .333 .410 .743 line in the second half of that year.

 

Using (presumably) similar logic to what you're doing right now, Hendry proceeded to give Neifi Perez a multiyear deal. If you looked at it through the context of his entire career, you'd realize he probably wasn't going to do that again, unless he was still playing in Coors.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because you have to look at it in the context of the rest of his career.

We once had a player put up the following one month line: 377 .406 .557 .963

In fact, he actually had a Barney-esque .295 .333 .410 .743 line in the second half of that year.

 

Using (presumably) similar logic to what you're doing right now, Hendry proceeded to give Neifi Perez a multiyear deal. If you looked at it through the context of his entire career, you'd realize he probably wasn't going to do that again, unless he was still playing in Coors.

 

"Darwin Barney's entire career says he can't consistently put up a .660 OPS in the majors" is a very different argument from "If you take out his best month, he's bad, so he's bad."

 

I can buy the former, but not the latter.

[jersey cubs fan]

Because you have to look at it in the context of the rest of his career.

We once had a player put up the following one month line: 377 .406 .557 .963

In fact, he actually had a Barney-esque .295 .333 .410 .743 line in the second half of that year.

 

Using (presumably) similar logic to what you're doing right now, Hendry proceeded to give Neifi Perez a multiyear deal. If you looked at it through the context of his entire career, you'd realize he probably wasn't going to do that again, unless he was still playing in Coors.

 

"Darwin Barney's entire career says he can't consistently put up a .660 OPS in the majors" is a very different argument from "If you take out his best month, he's bad, so he's bad."

 

I can buy the former, but not the latter.

 

Well then stop trying to be a dope and formulating other people's statement incorrectly.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well then stop trying to be a dope and formulating other people's statement incorrectly.

 

I didn't.

[bukie]

So, I was reading this article on extreme park factors and how exceptional Wrigley Field is for LH power hitters...

 

...and then I was trying to remember when the last time the Cubs actually had a LH power hitter that hit more than, say, 30 HRs.

 

The numbers are depressing. There's only been one Cub lefty to clear 30 HRs in the last 40 years.

[SouthSideRyan]

So, I was reading this article on extreme park factors and how exceptional Wrigley Field is for LH power hitters...

 

...and then I was trying to remember when the last time the Cubs actually had a LH power hitter that hit more than, say, 30 HRs.

 

The numbers are depressing. There's only been one Cub lefty to clear 30 HRs in the last 40 years.

 

Does clear 30 HRs = more than 30 HRs?

 

Because I know Wilkins had 30 on the dot, and that Henry Rodriguez had more than 30.

[fromthestretch]

 

The numbers are depressing. There's only been one Cub lefty to clear 30 HRs in the last 40 years.

 

That can't be accurate. I can think of two off the top of my head:

 

Rick Wilkins

Henry Rodriguez

 

ETA: SSR beat me to it.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wait, and Fred McGriff had exactly 30 too I think.

 

ETA: The vaunted 30 HR with 5 different teams record.

[bukie]

So, I was reading this article on extreme park factors and how exceptional Wrigley Field is for LH power hitters...

 

...and then I was trying to remember when the last time the Cubs actually had a LH power hitter that hit more than, say, 30 HRs.

 

The numbers are depressing. There's only been one Cub lefty to clear 30 HRs in the last 40 years.

 

Does clear 30 HRs = more than 30 HRs?

 

Because I know Wilkins had 30 on the dot, and that Henry Rodriguez had more than 30.

I searched BR for > 30, and yeah, only Henry Rodriguez (who hit 31 in 1998) cleared the bar since Billy Williams in 1970. Wilkins and McGriff hit 30.

[Sammy Sofa]

And LaHair/Rizzo have to put up around a .800 OPS at 1B.

 

Slow down.

[seanimal]

Well I guess so. But they didn't have to make any moves at all to have that kind of "improvement".

 

wtf are you talking about? of course they did

wtf we are talking about is the difference between projected performance and actual performance.

 

The current crew (Wood, Maholm and Volstad) project now about the same as the last crew (Zambrano Cashner Wells) projected last spring.

 

Pointing out that the last crew performed worse than projected isn't particularly revealing.

 

no, what you're said is that the team didn't have to make any changes in the rotation to improve upon their performance from last year. you're wrong.

I'm wrong if you rather curiously believe players will perform exactly the same in 2012 as they did in 2011.

 

You may believe that; I do not.

 

wait are you just [expletive] with me? you can't possibly be this dense. though you seem to think there are only two possible outcomes here, there are actually three:

 

1) you're right if the combination of Zambrano-Cashner-Wells improve their overall contribution to the rotation this year over last.

 

2) and, as you say, you're wrong if they perform the same as they did. (you used the word "exactly", but that's a debate tactic for kindergarteners) not what i would think is most likely but probably more likely than expecting or betting on them to be meaningfully better than they were last year.

 

how it doesn't occur to you that the third, most obvious possibility is that they perform worse/contribute less to the starting rotation is beyond me. zambrano is only getting older, cashner may never log significant innings as a starter for the rest of his career, and wells is as much of a candidate to be a sub-1 WAR pitcher as he is to be worth anything over 2 WAR. i certainly wouldn't gamble any amount of money that he'll improve, and certainly wouldn't go around parading the conclusion that this gang is a sure thing to improve upon what they gave us last year.

Edited January 25, 2012 by seanimal

[Sammy Sofa]

wait are you just [expletive] with me? you can't possibly be this dense. though you seem to think there are only two possible outcomes here

 

WHAT HE DID THAT NO WAY

[davearm2]

wait are you just [expletive] with me? you can't possibly be this dense. though you seem to think there are only two possible outcomes here, there are actually three:

 

1) you're right if the combination of Zambrano-Cashner-Wells improve their overall contribution to the rotation this year over last.

 

2) and, as you say, you're wrong if they perform the same as they did. (you used the word "exactly", but that's a debate tactic for kindergarteners) not what i would think is most likely but probably more likely than expecting or betting on them to be meaningfully better than they were last year.

 

how it doesn't occur to you that the third, most obvious possibility is that they perform worse/contribute less to the starting rotation is beyond me. zambrano is only getting older, cashner may never log significant innings as a starter for the rest of his career, and wells is as much of a candidate to be a sub-1 WAR pitcher as he is to be worth anything over 2 WAR. i certainly wouldn't gamble any amount of money that he'll improve, and certainly wouldn't go around parading the conclusion that this gang is a sure thing to improve upon what they gave us last year.

My expectation is that #1 is the most likely outcome. Hence the conclusion, they didn't have to make any moves at all to have that kind of (on-paper, projected) improvement.

 

So to recap. Wood-Maholm-Volstad are expected to outperform the actual performance of last year's BOR. That's of limited usefulness, though, because (again, IMO) Zambrano-Cashner-Wells would also have been expected to outperform their actual performance from 2011.

 

Hope this helps.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The difference is, the current grouping has much more upside.