6/22 Astros (Norris) @ Cubs (Wood) 3:05pm, WGN TV/Radio

[Southpaw191679666239]

The Cubs were homer happy on Friday, and Garza pitched a good game.

 

The Northsiders look to continue the trend Saturday afternoon, as they face Bud Norris; sporting a record of 5-7 and an ERA of 3.64

 

The cellar-dwellers of the AL West will face Travis Wood (5-6, 2.74 ERA) as he continues to try to build up his trade value.

 

 

Go Cubs!

[Sammy Sofa]

Uh, I really hope/assume they're not planning on trading Wood. They do need to actually try and field a team next year that isn't completely horrible, stunning as that concept may be.

[PackLandVA]

Everyone should have a price. If some team is willing to overpay.....

[Sammy Sofa]

Everyone should have a price.

 

That's not true at all. It's unlikely a team would be willing to overpay enough to justify moving him, so you'd likely only be trading him basically just for the sake of trading him. And again, they shouldn't be trying to punt next year. Since Garza, Feldman and Villanueva are all likely to be moved the smart move would be to hold on to Wood.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Of course everyone has a price. But unless we're assuming that some other team is terminally stupid, it's only worth talking about trades that can realistically happen.

 

Nobody needs pitching for next year more than we need pitching for next year, so it's unlikely that anyone will offer us more for Travis Wood than Travis Wood is worth to us.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The everyone has a price argument needs to go. Obviously, if somebody is willing to overpay for him, we're all ears. However, theres no reason to agressivley shop Wood or anyone else that figures to be a factor in 2014 and beyond. The bottom line is that there's a world of space between agressively shopping a player and a player being labeled untouchable. Most players considered untouchable by their fans tend to fall somewhere in this space.

[Guest]

If someone out there actually believes that Travis Wood has become a legit 2.74 ERA pitcher and makes us an offer based upon that value, then we should take it.

 

With Wood overperforming anything we could reasonably expect out of him in the future by such a margin, it is very conceivable that we could get more in return than his actual future value for the team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If someone out there actually believes that Travis Wood has become a legit 2.74 ERA pitcher and makes us an offer based upon that value, then we should take it.

 

With Wood overperforming anything we could reasonably expect out of him in the future by such a margin, it is very conceivable that we could get more in return than his actual future value for the team.

 

I find it very hard to believe that there are any GMs out there who both go by ERA and will be buyers at the deadline.

[Guest]

If someone out there actually believes that Travis Wood has become a legit 2.74 ERA pitcher and makes us an offer based upon that value, then we should take it.

 

With Wood overperforming anything we could reasonably expect out of him in the future by such a margin, it is very conceivable that we could get more in return than his actual future value for the team.

 

I find it very hard to believe that there are any GMs out there who both go by ERA and will be buyers at the deadline.

Kevin Towers says hi.

 

I'd be on the phone commiserating about his SP injury woes and how the youngsters just aren't performing. Then I'd ask for Skaggs or Bradley in return for Wood and see what happens.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I really doubt Kevin Towers uses ERA.

 

He might use some proprietary mix of stupid and scouting reports, but not ERA.

[Guest]

I really doubt Kevin Towers uses ERA.

 

He might use some proprietary mix of stupid and scouting reports, but not ERA.

This may be true, but the gist of my point still stands.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This may be true, but the gist of my point still stands.

 

OK. I'll stipulate that if, out of the 30 major league front offices, there's still one out there who is both dumb enough to believe in Wood's performance based on superficial stats (ignoring both the scouting reports and the advanced statistics that say he's somewhere in the vicinity of average) *and* in the market to overpay for a starting pitcher, it's theoretically possible that they might overpay us by such a degree it would overcome the fact that we desperately need guy's like Wood for the near and medium-term futures.

 

It seems extremely unlikely to me, but I can't say that it's impossible.

[sneakypower]

probably worth noting, that even using FIP, Wood leads the team in WAR

[Hairyducked Idiot]

probably worth noting, that even using FIP, Wood leads the team in WAR

 

Yeah, the interesting question with Wood is whether he's legitimately got a talent for limiting home runs despite being a fly ball pitcher.

 

If he does, then you'd expect him to pitch more toward his 3.46 FIP. If not, then you'd expect him to pitch more toward his 4.40 xFIP.

[Guest]

probably worth noting, that even using FIP, Wood leads the team in WAR

Sure.

 

Then when you use xFIP to remove his luck on fly balls, he's pretty easily the worst of the six starters we've run out there this year.

[Guest]

By the way, is that because of his added value with the bat? Because Shark has pitched more innings and has a lower FIP.

[sneakypower]

he's in the top 10 for IFFBs, so xFIP isn't exactly the best judge

 

factoring in hitting, he's at 2.4 fWAR & 3.2 bWAR right now

[Guest]

he's in the top 10 for IFFBs, so xFIP isn't exactly the best judge

 

factoring in hitting, he's at 2.4 fWAR & 3.2 bWAR right now

Looking at the top 10 in IFFB%, there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between that and HR/FB. In fact, I ran a correlation between IFFB% and HR/FB for the entire list of qualified pitchers and only came up with -0.1313, which means there's basically no correlation there. Considering Wood is also #4 on the list of fly balls allowed in total, it's not surprising that he's #9 in IFFB%. However, given that he's #4 in highest FB% it is rather stunning that he's #17 in the fewest HR/9.

 

Also, considering that going back to just last year he allowed a much more normal number of HR, I don't think he's suddenly learned a skill no other pitcher in baseball possesses.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Would not his age and 3 remaining years under team control make him at least worth the gamble? Regardless of how high above his head he may or may not be pitching, I think it's a pretty safe bet that he's not Randy Wells and is a very safe bet to be an above average 4 starter and a decent chance to be a 3 productive 3 starter.

[Guest]

Would not his age and 3 remaining years under team control make him at least worth the gamble? Regardless of how high above his head he may or may not be pitching, I think it's a pretty safe bet that he's not Randy Wells and is a very safe bet to be an above average 4 starter and a decent chance to be a 3 productive 3 starter.

I'm not suggesting we give him away. If we keep him, I'll be plenty happy to have him at the back of the rotation next year. But I do think it's possible that one of the dimmer GM's in baseball may significantly over value him based upon his results so far this year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Just gonna throw out there that Trevor Bauer is a 22-year-old pitcher with a 4.71 FIP at AAA and a 5.26 FIP in the majors, while Didi Gregorius is a 23-year-old SS with 1.5 fWAR in 49 games.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Would not his age and 3 remaining years under team control make him at least worth the gamble? Regardless of how high above his head he may or may not be pitching, I think it's a pretty safe bet that he's not Randy Wells and is a very safe bet to be an above average 4 starter and a decent chance to be a 3 productive 3 starter.

I'm not suggesting we give him away. If we keep him, I'll be plenty happy to have him at the back of the rotation next year. But I do think it's possible that one of the dimmer GM's in baseball may significantly over value him based upon his results so far this year.

 

I know what you're saying. But I'm thinking that he could be more than a back end guy. Maybe not a sub 3.00 ERA guy, but somewhere between the the two. Then again, when I think back end, I think Jason Marquis, so it's all relative I suppose.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

OK. I know I'm going to come off stupid, but I haven't totally grasped the whole concept that ERA means nothing. I understand that some circumstances like having a bad defense would possibly inflate an ERA, but doesn't it still somewhat represent the quality of a pitcher and his work?

 

If somebody has a, say, 3.60 ERA or lower each year of a 10-year career, isn't it almost a lock that without looking at anything else, that the guy was probably considered by almost everybody to be a quality pitcher?

 

Again, I'm just looking to become educated. Help me out.

[mul21]

OK. I know I'm going to come off stupid, but I haven't totally grasped the whole concept that ERA means nothing. I understand that some circumstances like having a bad defense would possibly inflate an ERA, but doesn't it still somewhat represent the quality of a pitcher and his work?

 

If somebody has a, say, 3.60 ERA or lower each year of a 10-year career, isn't it almost a lock that without looking at anything else, that the guy was probably considered by almost everybody to be a quality pitcher?

 

Again, I'm just looking to become educated. Help me out.

 

After 10 years, yeah, you've established a large enough set of data that that's probably a safe assumption. What we're talking about here is an in season ERA that's much lower than previous performance would indicate. Things like an unsustainable HR/FB ratio, a really high strand rate of baserunners, and low K/BB ratio would be dead giveaways that the low ERA isn't sustainable. Those things are factored into FIP and xFIP to give you a more accurate assessment of performance.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

OK. I know I'm going to come off stupid, but I haven't totally grasped the whole concept that ERA means nothing. I understand that some circumstances like having a bad defense would possibly inflate an ERA, but doesn't it still somewhat represent the quality of a pitcher and his work?

 

If somebody has a, say, 3.60 ERA or lower each year of a 10-year career, isn't it almost a lock that without looking at anything else, that the guy was probably considered by almost everybody to be a quality pitcher?

 

Again, I'm just looking to become educated. Help me out.

 

After 10 years, yeah, you've established a large enough set of data that that's probably a safe assumption. What we're talking about here is an in season ERA that's much lower than previous performance would indicate. Things like an unsustainable HR/FB ratio, a really high strand rate of baserunners, and low K/BB ratio would be dead giveaways that the low ERA isn't sustainable. Those things are factored into FIP and xFIP to give you a more accurate assessment of performance.

 

Gotcha. Makes sense. Thank you.