Cubs after Anibal Sanchez? (Signs with Tiger 5/$80mil)

[fromthestretch]

yes and no.

also I am assuming the .796 includes games by baker and others. The split for Rizzo/Lahair at first is closer to .855. Unless you assume that Rizzo will never have a day off and plays 162. Someone will take the games as the back up, and he (the sub) could help or hurt that overall ops number BUT Rizzo's numbers should be compared to the regular starter at first because that's the stat line is his replacing

 

The .796 is what they got out of that position for the entire season, regardless of who was playing there. However, after Rizzo was called up, he started 86 of the remaining 89 games. Barring injury or a complete collapse in his performance, I think you can pencil him in for at least 150 games. Therefore, an .850 OPS (if he's able to reach that) would make for a nice improvement over last year's production at the position.

[javy knows my name]

yes and no.

I think and hope he will improve.

However, people are applying war stats to show how many more games we will win this. My thought is that war stats do not take into account any natural improvement by a young player. So if we are statistically showing how we will win more games we can't "hope" or "think" because it could just as easily go down. Obviously the more data we have, the better idea we have for what someone will do each year but even that is a "guess"

 

Now as fans we can think and hope these things but that is a different conversation.

I know that some are saying Rizzo will be better, and I hope that is the case, and to be better we need that. We also hoped that Castro would be better last year and he wasn't. I am only trying to be somewhat reasonable about how we will be better this year and on paper it's tough to say.

 

also I am assuming the .796 includes games by baker and others. The split for Rizzo/Lahair at first is closer to .855. Unless you assume that Rizzo will never have a day off and plays 162. Someone will take the games as the back up, and he (the sub) could help or hurt that overall ops number BUT Rizzo's numbers should be compared to the regular starter at first because that's the stat line is his replacing

 

Your posts have more in common with an acrostic poem than prose.

[neely crenshaw]

yes and no.

also I am assuming the .796 includes games by baker and others. The split for Rizzo/Lahair at first is closer to .855. Unless you assume that Rizzo will never have a day off and plays 162. Someone will take the games as the back up, and he (the sub) could help or hurt that overall ops number BUT Rizzo's numbers should be compared to the regular starter at first because that's the stat line is his replacing

 

The .796 is what they got out of that position for the entire season, regardless of who was playing there. However, after Rizzo was called up, he started 86 of the remaining 89 games. Barring injury or a complete collapse in his performance, I think you can pencil him in for at least 150 games. Therefore, an .850 OPS (if he's able to reach that) would make for a nice improvement over last year's production at the position.

 

No you are comparing 2 different stat lines.

you are comparing the stat line for every player at first base from last year with only the games played by the starting first basemen this year.

A bad 50 at bats by the sub would drop the overall ops by a lot.

[jersey cubs fan]

yes and no.

also I am assuming the .796 includes games by baker and others. The split for Rizzo/Lahair at first is closer to .855. Unless you assume that Rizzo will never have a day off and plays 162. Someone will take the games as the back up, and he (the sub) could help or hurt that overall ops number BUT Rizzo's numbers should be compared to the regular starter at first because that's the stat line is his replacing

 

The .796 is what they got out of that position for the entire season, regardless of who was playing there. However, after Rizzo was called up, he started 86 of the remaining 89 games. Barring injury or a complete collapse in his performance, I think you can pencil him in for at least 150 games. Therefore, an .850 OPS (if he's able to reach that) would make for a nice improvement over last year's production at the position.

 

He'd have to reach 850 in the first place and then whoever backs him up (right now there's nobody I'd even consider a threat to flirt with 800 OPS) would have to not drag down the numbers in those other 12 games. You also have to consider he's going to be facing more lefties if he does play 150 games, and he wasn't any good versus lefties last year.

[fromthestretch]

yes and no.

also I am assuming the .796 includes games by baker and others. The split for Rizzo/Lahair at first is closer to .855. Unless you assume that Rizzo will never have a day off and plays 162. Someone will take the games as the back up, and he (the sub) could help or hurt that overall ops number BUT Rizzo's numbers should be compared to the regular starter at first because that's the stat line is his replacing

 

The .796 is what they got out of that position for the entire season, regardless of who was playing there. However, after Rizzo was called up, he started 86 of the remaining 89 games. Barring injury or a complete collapse in his performance, I think you can pencil him in for at least 150 games. Therefore, an .850 OPS (if he's able to reach that) would make for a nice improvement over last year's production at the position.

 

No you are comparing 2 different stat lines.

you are comparing the stat line for every player at first base from last year with only the games played by the starting first basemen this year.

A bad 50 at bats by the sub would drop the overall ops by a lot.

 

I know what I'm comparing. I spelled it out pretty clearly. The reason I'm comparing 2013 Rizzo to the overall 2012 stat line for Cubs first basemen is due to my belief that Rizzo will get about 95% of the playing time at first base. I'm too lazy to do the math right now, but I would imagine it would take a disastrous 40 or so plate appearances by the player(s) getting the remaining ~5% of playing time to drag down the .850 OPS too much.

 

I'm in no way predicting an .850 OPS from Rizzo, but I'd like to think that a player of his age with his abilities should show some improvement in 2013. Also, considering how rarely Castro and Barney got a day off (Castro never did), I'm betting that Rizzo is going to be run out there pretty much every day. Jersey's concerns about how poorly Rizzo hit left-handers in 2012 is valid and would be magnified during the course of an entire season. However, I thought (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that Rizzo hit lefties pretty well in the minors. If he can improve his numbers against southpaws in 2013 even just a little, that would help.

[neely crenshaw]

Ok, so if you know that, why would you use the entire season at first base to show improvement rather than the .850 that was posted by Rizzo/Lahair in games they started? That would be the correct correlation.

In the 45-50 at bats that 12 starts would garner, a non-playing back up could easily put up stats bad enough to drop the overall ops by 20 to 30 points.

Could you see someone not hitting an extra base hit in 12 sporadic starts? That would drop slugging 20 points alone? how about a .200 average or less in those sporadic starts? another 10-20 in ob% especially if walks are few (which I'm guessing whoever is in that spot is going to be pitched to)

 

For the record Baker in his first 12 games last year hit a robust .207 with no extra base hits. So I would say it's very possible.

[fromthestretch]

Ok, so if you know that, why would you use the entire season at first base to show improvement rather than the .850 that was posted by Rizzo/Lahair in games they started? That would be the correct correlation.

In the 45-50 at bats 12 starts would garner, a non-playing back up could easily put up stats bad enough to drop the overall ops by 20 to 30 points.

Could you see someone not hitting an extra base hit in 12 sporadic starts? That would drop slugging 20 points alone? how about a .200 average or less in those sporadic starts? another 10-20 in ob% especially if walks are few (which I'm guessing whoever is in that spot is going to be pitched to)

 

Like I said, it would take a disastrous 12 or so starts to drag it down. Is that possible? Of course. It's also possible someone hits .320 with a handful of doubles in that time.

 

Assume that in those 12 games they get the same lousy rate of production they got from Baker this year in 20 games at first base (a .577 OPS). That would lower the OPS from that position from .850 to roughly .833, which is still a decent improvement over the sub-.800 OPS they got in 2012 from the position.

[neely crenshaw]

Ok, so if you know that, why would you use the entire season at first base to show improvement rather than the .850 that was posted by Rizzo/Lahair in games they started? That would be the correct correlation.

In the 45-50 at bats 12 starts would garner, a non-playing back up could easily put up stats bad enough to drop the overall ops by 20 to 30 points.

Could you see someone not hitting an extra base hit in 12 sporadic starts? That would drop slugging 20 points alone? how about a .200 average or less in those sporadic starts? another 10-20 in ob% especially if walks are few (which I'm guessing whoever is in that spot is going to be pitched to)

 

Like I said, it would take a disastrous 12 or so starts to drag it down. Is that possible? Of course. It's also possible someone hits .320 with a handful of doubles in that time.

 

Assume that in those 12 games they get the same lousy rate of production they got from Baker this year in 20 games at first base (a .577 OPS). That would lower the OPS from that position from .850 to roughly .833, which is still a decent improvement over the sub-.800 OPS they got in 2012 from the position.

Really, you feel .037 points of ops for an entire season is a game changer?

That's a shade over 3 fewer hrs for the entire season (.030)

Edited December 18, 2012 by neely crenshaw

[fromthestretch]

Ok, so if you know that, why would you use the entire season at first base to show improvement rather than the .850 that was posted by Rizzo/Lahair in games they started? That would be the correct correlation.

In the 45-50 at bats 12 starts would garner, a non-playing back up could easily put up stats bad enough to drop the overall ops by 20 to 30 points.

Could you see someone not hitting an extra base hit in 12 sporadic starts? That would drop slugging 20 points alone? how about a .200 average or less in those sporadic starts? another 10-20 in ob% especially if walks are few (which I'm guessing whoever is in that spot is going to be pitched to)

 

Like I said, it would take a disastrous 12 or so starts to drag it down. Is that possible? Of course. It's also possible someone hits .320 with a handful of doubles in that time.

 

Assume that in those 12 games they get the same lousy rate of production they got from Baker this year in 20 games at first base (a .577 OPS). That would lower the OPS from that position from .850 to roughly .833, which is still a decent improvement over the sub-.800 OPS they got in 2012 from the position.

Really, you feel .037 points of ops for an entire season is a game changer?

 

I never used those words. I said it's a decent improvement. (I bolded it above for your reading pleasure.) When you factor in that Rizzo is much better defensively than the statue that was LaHair, then I think you do have a pretty decent improvement at that position. Even small improvements here and there can add up.

[neely crenshaw]

So we should plan on winning say 10 more games with that decent improvement?

 

I'm sorry grass, you kind of came on at the end. This has been about how much better we will be simply because Rizzo replaces our 2012 First basemen not just that he should improve us.

So I kind of lumped it all together. You are right it will be a solid improvement and hopefully continue to grow from there. I just don't see it as anything that by itself will makes us very much better, partially because Lahair did have such a good start last year.

Edited December 18, 2012 by neely crenshaw

[Guest]

So we should plan on winning say 10 more games with that decent improvement?

 

Should we plan on winning 10 more games based on Rizzo playing 1B for a whole season instead of Rizzo and LaHair last year?

 

No.

 

And he never suggested as much, but you seem to think his wording implies a lot more than it actually does.

[neely crenshaw]

So we should plan on winning say 10 more games with that decent improvement?

 

Should we plan on winning 10 more games based on Rizzo playing 1B for a whole season instead of Rizzo and LaHair last year?

 

No.

 

And he never suggested as much, but you seem to think his wording implies a lot more than it actually does.

 

No I recanted. My fault,I just kind of put everyone in the same boat!

[fromthestretch]

So we should plan on winning say 10 more games with that decent improvement?

 

Should we plan on winning 10 more games based on Rizzo playing 1B for a whole season instead of Rizzo and LaHair last year?

 

No.

 

And he never suggested as much, but you seem to think his wording implies a lot more than it actually does.

 

Thank you. And I see that neely edited his post a bit to acknowledge this somewhat.

 

I'm not really trying to imply anything other than what I explicitly stated. Rizzo at an .850 OPS with ~95% of the playing time would be a decent improvement over 2012, even with lousy production from the backups in the remaining 12 or so games.

 

You aren't always going to be able to find significant improvement at each position, but that doesn't mean we should ignore small improvements in several areas when they can be found.

[Bull]

We won't have to platoon Rizzo with baker to prop up his performance. That seems to be overlooked here.

that would be a great point but it's not really true.

lahair did not play in 5 of the first 50 games (april and may)

and played but did not start 5 others. I wouldn't exactly call that a platoon.

even in june he did not play in 4 games, and didn't start 6 others. (27 total games) at the end of June Rizzo took over first base

after that he basically was a part-timer.

 

I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. I am certainly not trying to say Lahair is as good or better. Rizzo is the better player, the team is better with him no doubt. BUT

If we are trying to point out where the team will win more games this season over last you can't just say we will be better because of Rizzo's performance at first. The stats we had in 2012 have already happened. To improve on paper, someone has to get those stats, and do better in order to win more games in theory.

This is all theoretical but if we can't just say we will win more games because we now have Rizzo playing first for the full season because Lahair was a stud for 5-6 weeks.

The team is better, but to say we will win more games than 2012, the performance that happened has to be replaced.

So I am just saying that with what we can expect from Rizzo over the full year, it will be pretty much exactly the same as we got out of first base last season statistically.

The main reason I say that is because the stats for our first basemen were almost identical in the first and second half.

 

Of course its true! In 2012 LaHair had 86 starts. He started 5 games against left handed starters (.292 OPS vs all lefties on the year in 48 ABs) and 81 against right handed starters. If that's not a platoon I don't know what is. Rizzo started 23 against lefties (.599 against all lefties in 101 ABs) and 62 vs RH starters. Full time.

[neely crenshaw]

I agree totally, and I know if you don't read every post, it doesn't sound like that. I think where this went off track is, I just tried to say that we have to factor in how well Lahair did in the first half of the season, and to be better win-wise as a team, we have to compensate for that great start.

Rizzo is absolutely an upgrade. I hope we can pencil him in for the next 10 years at first and batting 3rd. We just need a few more upgrades before I think we can start talking about 75 wins.

Heck I think we need a lot to break our way to get to 70 with current lineup

[neely crenshaw]

We won't have to platoon Rizzo with baker to prop up his performance. That seems to be overlooked here.

that would be a great point but it's not really true.

lahair did not play in 5 of the first 50 games (april and may)

and played but did not start 5 others. I wouldn't exactly call that a platoon.

even in june he did not play in 4 games, and didn't start 6 others. (27 total games) at the end of June Rizzo took over first base

after that he basically was a part-timer.

 

I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. I am certainly not trying to say Lahair is as good or better. Rizzo is the better player, the team is better with him no doubt. BUT

If we are trying to point out where the team will win more games this season over last you can't just say we will be better because of Rizzo's performance at first. The stats we had in 2012 have already happened. To improve on paper, someone has to get those stats, and do better in order to win more games in theory.

This is all theoretical but if we can't just say we will win more games because we now have Rizzo playing first for the full season because Lahair was a stud for 5-6 weeks.

The team is better, but to say we will win more games than 2012, the performance that happened has to be replaced.

So I am just saying that with what we can expect from Rizzo over the full year, it will be pretty much exactly the same as we got out of first base last season statistically.

The main reason I say that is because the stats for our first basemen were almost identical in the first and second half.

 

Of course its true! In 2012 LaHair had 86 starts. He started 5 games against left handed starters (.292 OPS vs all lefties on the year in 48 ABs) and 81 against right handed starters. If that's not a platoon I don't know what is. Rizzo started 23 against lefties (.599 against all lefties in 101 ABs) and 62 vs RH starters. Full time.

He (Lahair) started 45 of 50 games(first 2 months). Yes, they gave him days off vs lefties but to say that "propped" up his stats is wrong. If he went 3-20 (which is about his split) he'd still have very a nice stat line.

Regardless of this, do we still need to have someone replace the stats he actually put up or do they not count because he didn't hit off enough lefties?

Whether we like it or not Lahair had an awesome start, the team has to compensate for that to be better this year. We have a lot of the same offense, so if we don't get a 1.200 ops for the month of april, and we are guessing everyone else to do their average, how will our offense be better? Rizzo is an upgrade but we had "george herman" Lahair for a month and a half, then he returned to plain old Bryan.

[Bull]

We won't have to platoon Rizzo with baker to prop up his performance. That seems to be overlooked here.

that would be a great point but it's not really true.

lahair did not play in 5 of the first 50 games (april and may)

and played but did not start 5 others. I wouldn't exactly call that a platoon.

even in june he did not play in 4 games, and didn't start 6 others. (27 total games) at the end of June Rizzo took over first base

after that he basically was a part-timer.

 

I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. I am certainly not trying to say Lahair is as good or better. Rizzo is the better player, the team is better with him no doubt. BUT

If we are trying to point out where the team will win more games this season over last you can't just say we will be better because of Rizzo's performance at first. The stats we had in 2012 have already happened. To improve on paper, someone has to get those stats, and do better in order to win more games in theory.

This is all theoretical but if we can't just say we will win more games because we now have Rizzo playing first for the full season because Lahair was a stud for 5-6 weeks.

The team is better, but to say we will win more games than 2012, the performance that happened has to be replaced.

So I am just saying that with what we can expect from Rizzo over the full year, it will be pretty much exactly the same as we got out of first base last season statistically.

The main reason I say that is because the stats for our first basemen were almost identical in the first and second half.

 

Of course its true! In 2012 LaHair had 86 starts. He started 5 games against left handed starters (.292 OPS vs all lefties on the year in 48 ABs) and 81 against right handed starters. If that's not a platoon I don't know what is. Rizzo started 23 against lefties (.599 against all lefties in 101 ABs) and 62 vs RH starters. Full time.

He (Lahair) started 45 of 50 games(first 2 months). Yes, they gave him days off vs lefties but to say that "propped" up his stats is wrong. If he went 3-20 (which is about his split) he'd still have very a nice stat line.

Regardless of this, do we still need to have someone replace the stats he actually put up or do they not count because he didn't hit off enough lefties?

Whether we like it or not Lahair had an awesome start, the team has to compensate for that to be better this year. We have a lot of the same offense, so if we don't get a 1.200 ops for the month of april, and we are guessing everyone else to do their average, how will our offense be better? Rizzo is an upgrade but we had "george herman" Lahair for a month and a half, then he returned to plain old Bryan.

 

1.200 ops as a platoon player. In those 10 games he didn't start, I'd wager 9 of them were vs. lefties. Add 27+ plate appearances at a .290 OPS clip and I'd imagine that 1.200 ops falls more than a little. His stats were propped up by being a platoon player. Tim's statement is accurate.

[neely crenshaw]

Actually it was 7-3, he sat vs Strasberg, Westbrook and Kyle Kendrick. He also started against Danks, Capuano and Wolf. It looks more like they were being smart and giving him his days off vs lefties as much as possible rather than "platooning" him.

3 of the games he didn't play were within the first 2 weeks of the season, as well as 3 other non-starts. So 6 of these games he was being "protected in" were in the first 17 games. Perhaps it was a young guy who was still earning his shot? His next non-play game was a month and half later at the end of May(27-29), as well as his last 2 non-starts (May 22-23). To me that doesn't seem like a normal pattern of platooning. Regardless whether his stats are"propped" up or not, Someone still has to pick up that performance from the 45 games he did contribute. If you want to say that the Cubs offense will be better in the 10 games they sat LaHair, then OK, but when do we pick up the slack from the other 40 starts? You just can't completely disregard what LaHair did at the start of the season. He carried us offensively in April and lots of May.

 

I guess I'd just say this, I think the Cubs are better with Rizzo at first. I just don't think that translates into more wins next season.

[SABR Gamer]

Actually it was 7-3, he sat vs Strasberg, Westbrook and Kyle Kendrick. He also started against Danks, Capuano and Wolf. It looks more like they were being smart and giving him his days off vs lefties as much as possible rather than "platooning" him.

3 of the games he didn't play were within the first 2 weeks of the season, as well as 3 other non-starts. So 6 of these games he was being "protected in" were in the first 17 games. Perhaps it was a young guy who was still earning his shot? His next non-play game was a month and half later at the end of May(27-29), as well as his last 2 non-starts (May 22-23). To me that doesn't seem like a normal pattern of platooning. Regardless whether his stats are"propped" up or not, Someone still has to pick up that performance from the 45 games he did contribute. If you want to say that the Cubs offense will be better in the 10 games they sat LaHair, then OK, but when do we pick up the slack from the other 40 starts? You just can't completely disregard what LaHair did at the start of the season. He carried us offensively in April and lots of May.

 

I guess I'd just say this, I think the Cubs are better with Rizzo at first. I just don't think that translates into more wins next season.

 

 

LOL. Rizzo was worth 2 WAR in half a season, LaHair was worth 0 WAR for the full season. Rizzo should be a 4 or more win upgrade from LaHair.

[neely crenshaw]

you playing with stats that are guesses.

and then you attach "should"

 

Also Lahair was 0.7, and Rizzo was 1.8 but you can't compare a full season of Rizzo to a half season of Lahair.

The difference is .9 of game in the first half of the season. Rizzo was the first basemen in the 2nd half season, so you have to compare Rizzo to Rizzo not Lahair.

 

Your 0 for Lahair may have included his out of position play in the outfield. I used only the 1B war for each, which I am guessing plays out to about half a season for each

[SABR Gamer]

you playing with stats that are guesses.

and then you attach "should"

 

Also Lahair was 0.7, and Rizzo was 1.8 but you can't compare a full season of Rizzo to a half season of Lahair.

The difference is .9 of game in the first half of the season. Rizzo was the first basemen in the 2nd half season, so you have to compare Rizzo to Rizzo not Lahair.

 

Your 0 for Lahair may have included his out of position play in the outfield. I used only the 1B war for each, which I am guessing plays out to about half a season for each

 

I was going from my memory of LaHair's rWAR not fWAR. but still, Rizzo is going to be a good improvement. Rizzo will be better than LaHair AND will likely be better than his own 2nd half numbers.

[neely crenshaw]

In an offseason where not much is happening, I sure hope he is lots better! but he is definitely an upgrade, we just haven't done much else