Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[JeffH]

If anything, tonight's events may make it less likely for the Jays to pony up. Their big chance for 2012 was for the Yankees to look weak. The Red Sox are a non-factor. They don't have what it takes to get Garza.

[questionmarkgrace]

So the Yankees gave their rotation a pretty huge upgrade tonight out of nowhere with Pineda and Kuroda. I've gotta think this could make the Jays/Red Sox overpay for Garza to keep them in the race.

 

just a thought. but it would be nice if the yanks spun pineda and banuellos(sp) ... our way for Garza. Maybe this is a precursory trade?

[ctcf]

So the Yankees gave their rotation a pretty huge upgrade tonight out of nowhere with Pineda and Kuroda. I've gotta think this could make the Jays/Red Sox overpay for Garza to keep them in the race.

 

just a thought. but it would be nice if the yanks spun pineda and banuellos(sp) ... our way for Garza. Maybe this is a precursory trade?

 

I'd love it, but I'd be pretty surprised. If I were the Yanks, I'd probably rather have Pineda.

[A New Era]

not a huge news or statistical addition to the thread. But Garza probably got the hugest fan reaction just under Wood. So obviously the fans love him, and are glad for the moment, he's still a Cub.

 

I mean I feel the same way about the guy. One of our posters had a gif of him getting up and shouting "yeah boy" in the dugout, and to have that kind of enthusiasm even on last years team, bundled with his talent. Is surely a guy that fits into the "cubs way".

[StarlinOnYou]

So the Yankees gave their rotation a pretty huge upgrade tonight out of nowhere with Pineda and Kuroda. I've gotta think this could make the Jays/Red Sox overpay for Garza to keep them in the race.

 

just a thought. but it would be nice if the yanks spun pineda and banuellos(sp) ... our way for Garza. Maybe this is a precursory trade?

 

Pineda is what we would hope to get in return for Garza. Pretty much a proven Jacob Turner. Pineda is 22 and looks to be a top of the rotation guy.

 

I don't think the Yanks were offering Montero for Garza. Serious doubts they would offer Pineda for Garza.

[questionmarkgrace]

So the Yankees gave their rotation a pretty huge upgrade tonight out of nowhere with Pineda and Kuroda. I've gotta think this could make the Jays/Red Sox overpay for Garza to keep them in the race.

 

just a thought. but it would be nice if the yanks spun pineda and banuellos(sp) ... our way for Garza. Maybe this is a precursory trade?

 

Pineda is what we would hope to get in return for Garza. Pretty much a proven Jacob Turner. Pineda is 22 and looks to be a top of the rotation guy.

 

I don't think the Yanks were offering Montero for Garza. Serious doubts they would offer Pineda for Garza.

 

I think they probably offered and we didnt bite. Montero is tough to pencil in at catcher everyday in the NL. At least in the AL he can bounce between dh and catcher. So maybe pineda is too much to ask for but perhaps this loosens the yankees up on including one of Betances/Banuellos in a deal.

[TruffleShuffle]

montero is tough to pencil in at catcher any day, regardless of league.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

not a huge news or statistical addition to the thread. But Garza probably got the hugest fan reaction just under Wood. So obviously the fans love him, and are glad for the moment, he's still a Cub.

 

I mean I feel the same way about the guy. One of our posters had a gif of him getting up and shouting "yeah boy" in the dugout, and to have that kind of enthusiasm even on last years team, bundled with his talent. Is surely a guy that fits into the "cubs way".

 

Great to hear about that shift...So many people hated the deal at the time. People really slept on the guys talent. So many had him pegged and clearly had never even seen him pitch.

 

I'm perfectly fine with keeping him, but I think the Tigers should still be mega interested. Teams window is now...

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd take Pineda for Garza straight up and not really think twice about it.

 

If it takes Pineda plus a prospect to get Montero, then the bar for a Garza trade is a lot lower than we hoped.

 

Obviously it only takes one sucker, as in the Marshall trade, but at this point I'd rather just keep Garza.

[Backtobanks]

 

Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

 

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean?

 

Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive.

[Backtobanks]

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

 

 

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them.

 

A whole lot will have to go right for them to win 75 games. LaHair is a downgrade at 1B, Stewart is a downgrade at 3B, and whoever replaces Marshall is a downgrade from a 71 win team. That's with the roster as it stands now (with Garza, Byrd, Soriano, etc.), but trading any of those players would also be an immediate downgrade for 2012.

 

 

You're kinda forgetting something important. The #4 and #5 pitchers the entire year.

 

Assuming they will be healthy and reasonably productive, the BOR will be an upgrade. The offensive downgrades will be the problem in 2012 unless we get a big surprise from LaHair/Stewart/Jackson.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

 

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean?

 

Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive.

 

Every player on a major-league roster has a significant track record from which we can make reasonable projections about their productivity.

 

Every player on a major-league roster has a non-zero chance of performing significantly differently than what we expect, including the so-called "sure thing" stars.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

 

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean?

 

Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive.

 

The question becomes what you do with those question marks. It's not right to assume that all of them are going to bust, because a lot of players don't bust. But some do, so it's not right to assume they're all going to play well either. You just have to project them the best you can. And the reasonable projections for the Cubs four players (Wood, Volstad, Stewart, LaHair) would say that the team will probably not be much worse if not better than last year. The 2012 Cubs will have better pitching, better defense, and worse offense than they did in 2011. The depth will be important this year. The 2011 Cubs had several players who were beyond horrific last year (Colvin, Hill, Coleman, and Davis) Giving those innings and at-bats to even bad players will help the team a pretty good amount. And most of the players returning (Soto, Byrd, Dempster for example) had poor years last year and should bounceback a little bit.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Every player has significant error bars on their projection.

 

The difference is that when a Pujols underperforms by a few WAR, he's still a great player. When most players underperform by a few WAR, they fall into the mass of replacement-level fungibility.

[Backtobanks]

 

Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

 

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean?

 

Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive.

 

Every player on a major-league roster has a significant track record from which we can make reasonable projections about their productivity.

 

Every player on a major-league roster has a non-zero chance of performing significantly differently than what we expect, including the so-called "sure thing" stars.

 

That's not true of prospects and foreign players. The track record in the minors or foreign leagues often doesn't translate to reasonable projections about their productivity. Every failed player that's called up to the ML obviously had a decent minor league track record or they wouldn't have been called up. The players that I named may have a "non-zero" chance of performing significantly different than what we expect, but it's darn close to zero. The question mark players have a high chance of performing differently because there is no base line to set expectations.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That's not true of prospects and foreign players. The track record in the minors or foreign leagues often doesn't translate to reasonable projections about their productivity. Every failed player that's called up to the ML obviously had a decent minor league track record or they wouldn't have been called up. The players that I named may have a "non-zero" chance of performing significantly different than what we expect, but it's darn close to zero. The question mark players have a high chance of performing differently because there is no base line to set expectations.

 

You are just wrong about this. Bill James proved pretty conclusively in the 1980s that properly adjusted minor league statistics are just as predictive as major-league statistics.

 

Yes, sometimes prospects flame out. Most of the time, this isn't because their MiLB statistics weren't predictive enough, it's because their MiLB statistics were projecting them to be not good enough but the team was counting on them to improve with age.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

 

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean?

 

Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive.

 

Every player on a major-league roster has a significant track record from which we can make reasonable projections about their productivity.

 

Every player on a major-league roster has a non-zero chance of performing significantly differently than what we expect, including the so-called "sure thing" stars.

 

That's not true of prospects and foreign players. The track record in the minors or foreign leagues often doesn't translate to reasonable projections about their productivity. Every failed player that's called up to the ML obviously had a decent minor league track record or they wouldn't have been called up. The players that I named may have a "non-zero" chance of performing significantly different than what we expect, but it's darn close to zero. The question mark players have a high chance of performing differently because there is no base line to set expectations.

 

Wood has 200 major league innings and Volstad has 600. Even if we didn't have a good base because of their minor league record (which I don't agree with) we have plenty of major league results to base a decent projection on. And in the case of Wood's 200 innings, it matches up very well with what he did in the minors which gives further proof that it's sustainable. Wood, Volstad, Maholm with Wells backing them up is significantly better than Zambrano, Wells, Cashner, Coleman, Davis, and Lopez gave the Cubs last year.

[Backtobanks]

That's not true of prospects and foreign players. The track record in the minors or foreign leagues often doesn't translate to reasonable projections about their productivity. Every failed player that's called up to the ML obviously had a decent minor league track record or they wouldn't have been called up. The players that I named may have a "non-zero" chance of performing significantly different than what we expect, but it's darn close to zero. The question mark players have a high chance of performing differently because there is no base line to set expectations.

 

You are just wrong about this. Bill James proved pretty conclusively in the 1980s that properly adjusted minor league statistics are just as predictive as major-league statistics.

 

Yes, sometimes prospects flame out. Most of the time, this isn't because their MiLB statistics weren't predictive enough, it's because their MiLB statistics were projecting them to be not good enough but the team was counting on them to improve with age.

 

 

You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? ML teams call up players who have lousy numbers in the minors because they think those lousy minor league numbers will improve with age. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mul21]

That's not true of prospects and foreign players. The track record in the minors or foreign leagues often doesn't translate to reasonable projections about their productivity. Every failed player that's called up to the ML obviously had a decent minor league track record or they wouldn't have been called up. The players that I named may have a "non-zero" chance of performing significantly different than what we expect, but it's darn close to zero. The question mark players have a high chance of performing differently because there is no base line to set expectations.

 

You are just wrong about this. Bill James proved pretty conclusively in the 1980s that properly adjusted minor league statistics are just as predictive as major-league statistics.

 

Yes, sometimes prospects flame out. Most of the time, this isn't because their MiLB statistics weren't predictive enough, it's because their MiLB statistics were projecting them to be not good enough but the team was counting on them to improve with age.

 

 

You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? ML teams call up players who have lousy numbers in the minors because they think those lousy minor league numbers will improve with age. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Re-read what he wrote. Nowhere did he say anything about the majors. He just said that prospects flame out.

[Backtobanks]

That's not true of prospects and foreign players. The track record in the minors or foreign leagues often doesn't translate to reasonable projections about their productivity. Every failed player that's called up to the ML obviously had a decent minor league track record or they wouldn't have been called up. The players that I named may have a "non-zero" chance of performing significantly different than what we expect, but it's darn close to zero. The question mark players have a high chance of performing differently because there is no base line to set expectations.

 

You are just wrong about this. Bill James proved pretty conclusively in the 1980s that properly adjusted minor league statistics are just as predictive as major-league statistics.

 

Yes, sometimes prospects flame out. Most of the time, this isn't because their MiLB statistics weren't predictive enough, it's because their MiLB statistics were projecting them to be not good enough but the team was counting on them to improve with age.

 

 

You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? ML teams call up players who have lousy numbers in the minors because they think those lousy minor league numbers will improve with age. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Re-read what he wrote. Nowhere did he say anything about the majors. He just said that prospects flame out.

 

I'm assuming Bill James' conclusion involved minor league stats were predictive of major league production. We're talking about the Cubs and major league baseball and not predicting what a player will do in his 3rd year of rookie ball.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

I'm assuming Bill James' conclusion involved minor league stats were predictive of major league production. We're talking about the Cubs and major league baseball and not predicting what a player will do in his 3rd year of rookie ball.

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Backtobanks]

 

Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

 

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean?

 

Are you saying Felix, Sabathia, Castro, Cabrera, Pujols, etc. are all question marks? To answer your question, a "question mark" is a player that doesn't have a track record to predict whether he will be productive.

 

The question becomes what you do with those question marks. It's not right to assume that all of them are going to bust, because a lot of players don't bust. But some do, so it's not right to assume they're all going to play well either. You just have to project them the best you can. And the reasonable projections for the Cubs four players (Wood, Volstad, Stewart, LaHair) would say that the team will probably not be much worse if not better than last year. The 2012 Cubs will have better pitching, better defense, and worse offense than they did in 2011. The depth will be important this year. The 2011 Cubs had several players who were beyond horrific last year (Colvin, Hill, Coleman, and Davis) Giving those innings and at-bats to even bad players will help the team a pretty good amount. And most of the players returning (Soto, Byrd, Dempster for example) had poor years last year and should bounceback a little bit.

 

I agree that the pitching will be better and deeper than last year. Unfortunately, the pitching isn't good enough to keep up with the huge drop in offense. With LaHair at 1B instead of Pena and Stewart instead of ARam, the IF defense might be a wash. If we have bounceback years from some vets and a few surprises from the kids, we could be decent.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? ML teams call up players who have lousy numbers in the minors because they think those lousy minor league numbers will improve with age. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Yeah, okay, I was trying to play along with this like without treating you like you're dumb, but you are making that more and more difficult with each post.

 

A player's minor-league performance, especially high-minors, can be reliably translated into a Major League Equivalent. That MLE is just as predictive of that player's future stats as a major league performance would be. A .260/320/400 MLE is predictively equivalent to a 260/320/400 MLB stat line.

 

Where most prospects flame out is that their MLEs are close, but not quite, up to par. The teams hope they will continue to improve and they don't.

 

Take Felix Pie. At age 21 in 2001, he put up a .283/.341/.451 line at Iowa.

 

Plugging that into the handy online MLE calculator, that is the equivalent of a 230/274/352 line in the majors.

 

Despite that, the Cubs called him up in 2002, hoping he'd continue to improve because of his age. He didn't, posting a 215/271/333 line, eerily similar to his MLE the year before. He improved a small amount but mostly stagnated and became a .249/.298/.374 career hitter.

 

Again: It's a long-proven sabermetric tenant that properly-adjusted MiLB stats are just as predictive as MLB stats. The problem is that most people overestimate how predictive MLB stats are (even established players are pretty volatile) and they underestimate how harsh MLE adjustments can be. The idea that we have to just throw up our hands and pretend like we have no idea what to expect from these guys is lazy and wrong.

[SouthSideRyan]

Corey Patterson

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Corey Patterson

 

2000 AA MLE: 217/270/385

2001 AAA MLE: 207/252/354

2001 actual MLB performance: 221/266/366

2002 actual MLB performance: 253/284/392