How about some props for Maddux

[rocket]

Maddux wasn't better than Prior in 2005.

[srbin84]

Maddux wasn't better than Prior in 2005.

 

Maybe we look at things differently.

 

Maddux made 34 starts. Prior made 27 starts. Hill and Koronka made 7 starts combined.

 

When you add those 7 starts, which probably wouldn't have occured if Prior was healthy, the total ERA is about 4.60.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

VORP

 

2004

 

Maddux 34.8 (212 IP), .136 as a rate

Prior 25.6 (118 IP), .216 as a rate

Wood 28.8 (140 IP), .205 as a rate

 

Maddux was better than both in '04, but only because of IP. When they pitched, both Prior and Wood were better.

 

2005

 

Maddux 28.6 (225 IP), .127 as a rate

Prior 31.8 (166 IP), .190 as a rate

Wood 9.2 (66 IP), .136

 

This time, Prior was better cumulatively even though he threw almost 60 fewer innings. And again, when Wood pitched, he was more effective than Maddux.

 

Also worth noticing, it took Wood 140 IP in '04 to best Maddux's output in 225 IP. That's a staggering difference.

[srbin84]

VORP

 

2004

 

Maddux 34.8 (212 IP), .136 as a rate

Prior 25.6 (118 IP), .216 as a rate

Wood 28.8 (140 IP), .205 as a rate

 

Maddux was better than both in '04, but only because of IP. When they pitched, both Prior and Wood were better.

 

2005

 

Maddux 28.6 (225 IP), .127 as a rate

Prior 31.8 (166 IP), .190 as a rate

Wood 9.2 (66 IP), .136

 

This time, Prior was better cumulatively even though he threw almost 60 fewer innings. And again, when Wood pitched, he was more effective than Maddux.

 

Also worth noticing, it took Wood 140 IP in '04 to best Maddux's output in 225 IP. That's a staggering difference.

 

Innings are the most important stat. Nothing hurts a team more than having Koronkas pitch for them.

[goonys evil twin]

Innings are the most important stat. Nothing hurts a team more than having Koronkas pitch for them.

 

But what if Koronka threw 400 innings? If they are the most important stat, and he had that many, that would mean he's the best pitcher right? Do you suggest handing out Cy Youngs based on innings pitched?

[srbin84]

Innings are the most important stat. Nothing hurts a team more than having Koronkas pitch for them.

 

But what if Koronka threw 400 innings? If they are the most important stat, and he had that many, that would mean he's the best pitcher right? Do you suggest handing out Cy Youngs based on innings pitched?

 

No, good pitchers who deserve a spot in the rotation qualify. A guy who puts up a 2.00 ERA, but only makes 17 starts a year because of injuries and is replaced by piles of crap that get a 8 ERA in the other 17 is not a player worthy having unless you have high end major league arms in the minors.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

VORP

 

2004

 

Maddux 34.8 (212 IP), .136 as a rate

Prior 25.6 (118 IP), .216 as a rate

Wood 28.8 (140 IP), .205 as a rate

 

Maddux was better than both in '04, but only because of IP. When they pitched, both Prior and Wood were better.

 

2005

 

Maddux 28.6 (225 IP), .127 as a rate

Prior 31.8 (166 IP), .190 as a rate

Wood 9.2 (66 IP), .136

 

This time, Prior was better cumulatively even though he threw almost 60 fewer innings. And again, when Wood pitched, he was more effective than Maddux.

 

Also worth noticing, it took Wood 140 IP in '04 to best Maddux's output in 225 IP. That's a staggering difference.

 

Innings are the most important stat. Nothing hurts a team more than having Koronkas pitch for them.

 

In '04 the Cubs had Rusch and Mitre pitch when Wood and Prior were hurt. BP isn't loading for some reason, but I'm going to venture they had a positive VORP since they combined for a 4.44 ERA and a 1.33 WHIP as starters.

 

'05 is harder to figure because there's a rotation spot open even if both were healthy. Dempster, Williams, Rusch, Mitre, Hill, Koronka, and Leicester all started games, combining for a 4.97 ERA and a 1.47 WHIP. Not that great, but probably not below Replacement Level.

[srbin84]

VORP

 

2004

 

Maddux 34.8 (212 IP), .136 as a rate

Prior 25.6 (118 IP), .216 as a rate

Wood 28.8 (140 IP), .205 as a rate

 

Maddux was better than both in '04, but only because of IP. When they pitched, both Prior and Wood were better.

 

2005

 

Maddux 28.6 (225 IP), .127 as a rate

Prior 31.8 (166 IP), .190 as a rate

Wood 9.2 (66 IP), .136

 

This time, Prior was better cumulatively even though he threw almost 60 fewer innings. And again, when Wood pitched, he was more effective than Maddux.

 

Also worth noticing, it took Wood 140 IP in '04 to best Maddux's output in 225 IP. That's a staggering difference.

 

Innings are the most important stat. Nothing hurts a team more than having Koronkas pitch for them.

 

In '04 the Cubs had Rusch and Mitre pitch when Wood and Prior were hurt. BP isn't loading for some reason, but I'm going to venture they had a positive VORP since they combined for a 4.44 ERA and a 1.33 WHIP as starters.

 

'05 is harder to figure because there's a rotation spot open even if both were healthy. Dempster, Williams, Rusch, Mitre, Hill, Koronka, and Leicester all started games, combining for a 4.97 ERA and a 1.47 WHIP. Not that great, but probably not below Replacement Level.

 

Well, you ask yourself which pitchers would occupy that spot if they both were healthy. Hill and Koronka played only because of those injuries, no question. I think Dusty said he put Dempster in the rotation because of the injuries at the start of the year, so add those. I think that leaves a few more, one or two each from Williams, Rusch and Mitre.

[ThePenguin11]

Yuck, don't mean to get into the middle of this undecideable debate. I'm here to add a mea culpa for dogging Maddux hard for the last year. Although he did deserve the criticism for being out of shape and pitching substandard baseball, I've begun to change my thinking in that Maddux actually could pitch himself into a contract extension with an above average season. Before the season I stated that no matter how well he ends up pitching in 2006, he doesn't deserve a new contract because of his past laziness. Now I'm beginning to understand that he was just letting his age catch up with him - and didn't really know how to react to it. I'll give him credit for getting back into shape and becoming the pitcher we all hoped we were getting in 2004. I hope he keeps it up. I'd be happy to see Greg get another $8MM if he wins 16 or 17 games with a 3.50 era or lower. With this lineup, and with his new-found control and seriously upgraded movement on his pitches, those types of statistics are actually possible.

[rocket]

Maddux wasn't better than Prior in 2005.

 

Maybe we look at things differently.

 

Maddux made 34 starts. Prior made 27 starts. Hill and Koronka made 7 starts combined.

 

When you add those 7 starts, which probably wouldn't have occured if Prior was healthy, the total ERA is about 4.60.

 

You're right, we do look at things differently.

[Guest]

Innings are the most important stat. Nothing hurts a team more than having Koronkas pitch for them.

 

But what if Koronka threw 400 innings? If they are the most important stat, and he had that many, that would mean he's the best pitcher right? Do you suggest handing out Cy Youngs based on innings pitched?

 

No, good pitchers who deserve a spot in the rotation qualify. A guy who puts up a 2.00 ERA, but only makes 17 starts a year because of injuries and is replaced by piles of crap that get a 8 ERA in the other 17 is not a player worthy having unless you have high end major league arms in the minors.

So, for example, you'd rather have a 2004 Shawn Estes than a 2001 Pedro Martinez?

[srbin84]

Innings are the most important stat. Nothing hurts a team more than having Koronkas pitch for them.

 

But what if Koronka threw 400 innings? If they are the most important stat, and he had that many, that would mean he's the best pitcher right? Do you suggest handing out Cy Youngs based on innings pitched?

 

No, good pitchers who deserve a spot in the rotation qualify. A guy who puts up a 2.00 ERA, but only makes 17 starts a year because of injuries and is replaced by piles of crap that get a 8 ERA in the other 17 is not a player worthy having unless you have high end major league arms in the minors.

So, for example, you'd rather have a 2004 Shawn Estes than a 2001 Pedro Martinez?

 

It all depends on who is replacing them. If the numbers show that Pedro+ his replacements have worse numbers than Estes, you can't ingore it. I'd probably rather have Pedro just so I could be less frustrated with the team, but I know the team would be worse for it.