Re: Projecting the 2013 Cubs

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Are you actually relying on the legitacy of defensive and baserunning metrics of players who get 150-200 PA a year?

 

I'm open to alternative measures of value that aren't "well, I kinda remember this guy not being very good so I'll assume it's the same thing."

[Guest]

Lillibridge, if he does make the team, won't be the primary backup at any position(so an injury won't force him into the lineup), and would be last in the pecking order of RH bench guys(excepting switch hitting catcher Navarro). He also has to beat out the other NRI infielders, which would seem to be important considering both Maysonet and Gonzalez were better than Lillibridge last year. And of course there's also the fact that any given scattered 200 PA's are essentially a lottery when dealing with similarly skilled fringe major leaguers. Just doesn't seem worth the effort to get worked up about it in mid-February.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Lillibridge, if he does make the team, won't be the primary backup at any position(so an injury won't force him into the lineup), and would be last in the pecking order of RH bench guys(excepting switch hitting catcher Navarro). He also has to beat out the other NRI infielders, which would seem to be important considering both Maysonet and Gonzalez were better than Lillibridge last year. And of course there's also the fact that any given scattered 200 PA's are essentially a lottery when dealing with similarly skilled fringe major leaguers. Just doesn't seem worth the effort to get worked up about it in mid-February.

 

Yeah, I don't get this attitude at all. You know it's a bad move if Lillibridge gets the job. They've hinted that Lillibridge has a very good shot at getting the job. It'd be a pretty much carbon copy decision of the Mather mistake they made last year.

 

What's the threshold for when we can care about a mistake? 0.5 WAR? 1.5 WAR? 5.0 WAR?

[Cubswin11]

Is there a reason we are assuming Lillibridge will get the job?

 

Even if he wins it in the spring, is there a reason we're assuming he'll keep it over Lake/Watkins/etc if he's awful in the first half?

 

Because they are telegraphing the move pretty hard. He's Sveum's buddy, he's pretty much the only guy in camp who vaguely resembles a utility man besides Valbuena, and they aren't going to use prospects in that role.

Is it set that we are carrying 13 position players and 12 pitchers? Don't most teams usually do it the other way around? Is the schedule light to start the year that carrying 12 pitchers would be enough? I have 12 locks on offense.

 

Castillo/Navarro

Rizzo

Barney

Castro

Stewart

Valbuena

Soriano

Dejesus

Sappelt

Scheirholtz

Hairston

[Guest]

Lillibridge, if he does make the team, won't be the primary backup at any position(so an injury won't force him into the lineup), and would be last in the pecking order of RH bench guys(excepting switch hitting catcher Navarro). He also has to beat out the other NRI infielders, which would seem to be important considering both Maysonet and Gonzalez were better than Lillibridge last year. And of course there's also the fact that any given scattered 200 PA's are essentially a lottery when dealing with similarly skilled fringe major leaguers. Just doesn't seem worth the effort to get worked up about it in mid-February.

 

Yeah, I don't get this attitude at all. You know it's a bad move if Lillibridge gets the job. They've hinted that Lillibridge has a very good shot at getting the job. It'd be a pretty much carbon copy decision of the Mather mistake they made last year.

 

What's the threshold for when we can care about a mistake? 0.5 WAR? 1.5 WAR? 5.0 WAR?

 

Whenever skill becomes more likely to be the determining factor in performance than variance.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is it set that we are carrying 13 position players and 12 pitchers? Don't most teams usually do it the other way around? Is the schedule light to start the year that carrying 12 pitchers would be enough? I have 12 locks on offense.

 

Generally speaking, the choice is between 13/12 and 14/11. 12/13 has been done, but it's pretty rare.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Whenever skill becomes more likely to be the determining factor in performance than variance.

 

That wipes out the bench, the bullpen and several of the starters.

[Tracer Bullet]

Less than half a WAR 6 weeks before the season? Yeah, somewhere between there and 5 WAR is a reasonable range.

[Cubswin11]

Is it set that we are carrying 13 position players and 12 pitchers? Don't most teams usually do it the other way around? Is the schedule light to start the year that carrying 12 pitchers would be enough? I have 12 locks on offense.

 

Generally speaking, the choice is between 13/12 and 14/11. 12/13 has been done, but it's pretty rare.

Which way? That's what I'm asking. I always thought you tend to carry an extra pitcher than a position player.

[sneakypower]

Lillibridge, if he does make the team, won't be the primary backup at any position(so an injury won't force him into the lineup), and would be last in the pecking order of RH bench guys(excepting switch hitting catcher Navarro). He also has to beat out the other NRI infielders, which would seem to be important considering both Maysonet and Gonzalez were better than Lillibridge last year. And of course there's also the fact that any given scattered 200 PA's are essentially a lottery when dealing with similarly skilled fringe major leaguers. Just doesn't seem worth the effort to get worked up about it in mid-February.

 

Yeah, I don't get this attitude at all. You know it's a bad move if Lillibridge gets the job. They've hinted that Lillibridge has a very good shot at getting the job. It'd be a pretty much carbon copy decision of the Mather mistake they made last year.

 

What's the threshold for when we can care about a mistake? 0.5 WAR? 1.5 WAR? 5.0 WAR?

you're looking at this really stupidly; he's cost his teams 11 fielding runs at 2B and SS: positions where he'll never be needed, so throwing out his past WAR like it's representative of what we should expect going forward is a really moronic and pathetic analysis

[Guest]

Whenever skill becomes more likely to be the determining factor in performance than variance.

 

That wipes out the bench, the bullpen and several of the starters.

 

I highly doubt that, while being a substantial factor, variance is more of a determining factor in the performance of relief pitchers in significant roles than skill.

[SABR Gamer]

Is it set that we are carrying 13 position players and 12 pitchers? Don't most teams usually do it the other way around? Is the schedule light to start the year that carrying 12 pitchers would be enough? I have 12 locks on offense.

 

Generally speaking, the choice is between 13/12 and 14/11. 12/13 has been done, but it's pretty rare.

Which way? That's what I'm asking. I always thought you tend to carry an extra pitcher than a position player.

 

Teams usually carry either 13 position players and 12 pitchers or 14 position players and 11 pitchers. Rarely ever do teams carry 12 position players and 13 pitchers.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

you're looking at this really stupidly; he's cost his teams 11 fielding runs at 2B and SS: positions where he'll never be needed, so throwing out his past WAR like it's representative of what we should expect going forward is a really moronic and pathetic analysis

 

So long as we never use our backup infielder at the two positions he's played most in his career, he's almost replacement level. I'm sorry I doubted you, Theo and Jed.

[Guest]

Lillibridge, if he does make the team, won't be the primary backup at any position(so an injury won't force him into the lineup), and would be last in the pecking order of RH bench guys(excepting switch hitting catcher Navarro). He also has to beat out the other NRI infielders, which would seem to be important considering both Maysonet and Gonzalez were better than Lillibridge last year. And of course there's also the fact that any given scattered 200 PA's are essentially a lottery when dealing with similarly skilled fringe major leaguers. Just doesn't seem worth the effort to get worked up about it in mid-February.

 

Yeah, I don't get this attitude at all. You know it's a bad move if Lillibridge gets the job. They've hinted that Lillibridge has a very good shot at getting the job. It'd be a pretty much carbon copy decision of the Mather mistake they made last year.

 

What's the threshold for when we can care about a mistake? 0.5 WAR? 1.5 WAR? 5.0 WAR?

 

My threshold for caring is when the expected difference is greater than a rounding error. And bench players certainly aren't predictable commodities.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Less than half a WAR 6 weeks before the season? Yeah, somewhere between there and 5 WAR is a reasonable range.

 

I kind of want the front office that's proven it's capable of taking care of the little things to actually take care of the little things, because their failure to do so sort of implies that they just don't care.

[Sammy Sofa]

They weren't my list, and they've all been noticeably and consistently better than Lillibridge.

 

Nix is pretty much the only one you could make that argument about unless you want to continue hiding behind selective generalizations and pretending things like Old Man Cairo who was terrible last year is a preferable option.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They weren't my list, and they've all been noticeably and consistently better than Lillibridge.

 

Nix is pretty much the only one you could make that argument about unless you want to continue hiding behind selective generalizations and pretending things like Old Man Cairo who was terrible last year is a preferable option.

 

Nope. Everyone one of them has been consistently better than Matherbridge.

[Guest]

Oh, while we're on this point, the crux of this argument is Mather's -1.5 fWAR is somehow predictable and avoidable. In actuality, Mather was like -2 runs with the bat and -3 defense/fielding in the sum of his career before last year, and then put up -5 with the bat and -10 defense/fielding(playing time pre-2012 and in 2012 is about the same). So, shame on Theo and Jed for not seeing that one coming I guess.

[sneakypower]

you're looking at this really stupidly; he's cost his teams 11 fielding runs at 2B and SS: positions where he'll never be needed, so throwing out his past WAR like it's representative of what we should expect going forward is a really moronic and pathetic analysis

 

So long as we never use our backup infielder at the two positions he's played most in his career, he's almost replacement level. I'm sorry I doubted you, Theo and Jed.

unless you're actually dumb enough to think we'll just start giving Castro & Barney a ton of rest now because of his presence, then that's obviously what the plan is, if he makes the team

Edited February 19, 2013 by sneakypower

[KingCubsFan]

They weren't my list, and they've all been noticeably and consistently better than Lillibridge.

 

Nix is pretty much the only one you could make that argument about unless you want to continue hiding behind selective generalizations and pretending things like Old Man Cairo who was terrible last year is a preferable option.

 

Nope. Everyone one of them has been consistently better than Matherbridge.

It was more entertaining when you were arguing that Theo Epstein didn't feel like working so he came to the Cubs. Or that Ryan Flaherty was a better option than Ian Stewart.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Oh, while we're on this point, the crux of this argument is Mather's -1.5 fWAR is somehow predictable and avoidable. In actuality, Mather was like -2 runs with the bat and -3 defense/fielding in the sum of his career before last year, and then put up -5 with the bat and -10 defense/fielding(playing time pre-2012 and in 2012 is about the same). So, shame on Theo and Jed for not seeing that one coming I guess.

 

Shame on them for giving him a job at all, based on spring training results.

 

Make a bad decision for a bad reason and get a bad result, you get the blame, even if that bad result is toward the worse end of variance.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It was more entertaining when you were arguing that Theo Epstein didn't feel like working so he came to the Cubs. Or that Ryan Flaherty was a better option than Ian Stewart.

 

Don't forget Sappelt = Soriano.

 

It's baseball. We're all going to be wrong a lot.

[Tracer Bullet]

Less than half a WAR 6 weeks before the season? Yeah, somewhere between there and 5 WAR is a reasonable range.

 

I kind of want the front office that's proven it's capable of taking care of the little things to actually take care of the little things, because their failure to do so sort of implies that they just don't care.

 

I want my front office to take some gambles when they know in ST that the team will suck. Some of those gambles turn out to be useful trade pieces. Some turn out to be Joe Mather. Still a good decision to take the flier even if the result turns out to be a horrible baseball player. They're not going to hit on every bet.

[Guest]

Less than half a WAR 6 weeks before the season? Yeah, somewhere between there and 5 WAR is a reasonable range.

 

I kind of want the front office that's proven it's capable of taking care of the little things to actually take care of the little things, because their failure to do so sort of implies that they just don't care.

 

I want my front office to take some gambles when they know in ST that the team will suck. Some of those gambles turn out to be useful trade pieces. Some turn out to be Joe Mather. Still a good decision to take the flier even if the result turns out to be a horrible baseball player. They're not going to hit on every bet.

 

I get what you're saying, but since Kyle's issue is that they're putting a player that is known to be bad on the roster and that he wants somebody better in that role, why would that bad player be a better gamble than someone who is better?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I want my front office to take some gambles when they know in ST that the team will suck. Some of those gambles turn out to be useful trade pieces. Some turn out to be Joe Mather. Still a good decision to take the flier even if the result turns out to be a horrible baseball player. They're not going to hit on every bet.

 

Yeah, I don't want that at all. I don't want them giving up on teams in spring training.