MADDUX VESTING PARTY!!!

[Magnetic Curses]

Vance, I am not missing the point. I think the moneyball guys are. They go way to far in stat analysis. Stats aren't everything.

 

Again, Greg Maddux is the least of our problems.

 

i think the point is that wins aren't going to be consistent without whip, which isn't really a complicated stat anyway. if you have a consistently high whip or ERA+, you're going to lose, and lose a lot.

 

maddux has had a consistently low whip for his entire career. he never allowed many baserunners, which lead to runs against, leading to an even higher ERA, leading to losses.

 

pitchers with high career whips don't make the HOF or come close to 300 wins. why? because they aren't good.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Vance, I am not missing the point. I think the moneyball guys are. They go way to far in stat analysis. Stats aren't everything.

 

Again, Greg Maddux is the least of our problems.

 

I personally don't think Maddux is a problem either, though he is overpaid at 9 million.

 

Stat analysis is all about evaluating performance. Has Maddux been a decent performer for the Cubs? Surely. And is his ability to consistently stay in a game valuable? Surely. But no one will convince me that wins are an appropriate way to judge a pitcher's performance. There's too many variables there (mainly run support) that have nothing to do with the pitcher.

 

If I may, I'll share an analogy from my own profession.

 

If I assign my eighth graders a group project. I place four in a group and give them the assignment. Two students do all the work, but do it exceptionally. The other two do minimum work, but their co-workers pick up the slack. I may assign an "A" to that group for the project, but it is a poor assessment of each student's ability. If I want to know what each student is capable for, I will need a rubric that measures the individual contribution to the work of the group.

 

The final goal of any team is a win. Each player on the team contributes to that. Now, I will go as far to say the individual pitcher contributes more every fifth day than an individual offensive player, but judging the pitcher on the final outcome is as naive as assuming that since my group of students produced an excellent project that each did "A" level work in the process.

[RynoRules]

Yeah, I think we should all save our energy for figuring out how to fill out the rest of the rotation, finding three OFs for next year, and reforming our ghastly bullpen.

[ConstableRabbit]

It's hard to explain here that the Maddux streak is actually pretty damn cool.

 

Even though it's just wins.

 

Even though it's just more wins strung out than say, Cy Young.

 

Even though wins suck and they don't count, even though every pitcher you ever talk to says they want to win, and even though they might not get the win, they want the team to win, but they just don't know any better, obviously. They should be getting all worked up over their WHIP and BABIP and whatever else.

 

The point to getting Maddux always was that he wins games. That's what he does. He wins. And he's won.

 

There's a big disconnect between internet fans and chicagoland fans on that point.

 

I'm on Maddux's side. Sorry. He's delivered more than I've seen ya'll deliver.

 

I didn't even know that Maddux had a side in this. Who is dumping on Maddux? Nobody faults him for signing the most lucrative contract available to him.

 

I love Maddux. I think the guy is a consumate professional. I still harbor a somewhat unhealthy grudge that the man was ever let go. I supported bringing him back and even argued that the risk was low that he would deteriorate too badly if they brought him back for a couple of years.

 

I really don't understand where this post is coming from with respect to the balance of this thread. I freely admit that he has contributed more to Cub wins than I have, or, frankly, any other person on this board. But, how in the world is that relevant?

 

Finally, I think it is inaccurate, and a little unfair, to suggest that just because people don't live in Chicago that they are disconnected with the Maddux signing. If you and/or others have received an emotional boost or nostalgic attatchment from Maddux's return, good for you. Criticism of the deal or lamenting of his declining numbers shouldn't take anything away from that. At least thats not my design or intention.

 

JC, I certainly wasnt attempting to take away from your contributions or loyalty as a Cub fan. I think you and other non-Chicagoans have made great strides and some excellent points and contributions on this board and I for one am grateful that we have points of view from people outside of the Chicago media's reach for some different insight.

 

I think the point of the post was that while he's making more than he's worth, in the end, he gets the job done. It's certainly no problem that we're discussing this (hence, the purpose of a discussion board), but some of us feel that there are more important problems at hand, namely our abysmal outfield, the future of the infield, the bullpen and a manager who refuses to follow any logic whatsoever.

[JC]

One final point about wins.

 

Maddux is 24th in the majors in run support for qualified starters at 5.51. Of the 23 players ahead of him, all of them have at least 12 wins (Maddux's total) except 5. Those include:

 

-2 Devil Rays starters

-Kris Benson with 9 wins

-Jamie Moyer with 11 wins for Seattle

-Chris Young with 11 wins for Texas.

 

Thus, I would argue it is telling that 19 of the the top 24 pitchers in the majors in terms of run support have the same number of wins as Maddux, or more. It certainly lend support to the idea that wins are a team statistic rather than a pitching stat.

 

For what its worth, Prior was at 4.69 and Z was at 4.71.

[ConstableRabbit]

One final point about wins.

 

Maddux is 24th in the majors in run support for qualified starters at 5.51. Of the 23 players ahead of him, all of them have at least 12 wins (Maddux's total) except 5. Those include:

 

-2 Devil Rays starters

-Kris Benson with 9 wins

-Jamie Moyer with 11 wins for Seattle

-Chris Young with 11 wins for Texas.

 

Thus, I would argue it is telling that 19 of the the top 24 pitchers in the majors in terms of run support have the same number of wins as Maddux, or more. It certainly lend support to the idea that wins are a team statistic rather than a pitching stat.

 

For what its worth, Prior was at 4.69 and Z was at 4.71.

 

That's kinda my point though... we score more runs for Maddux, so who cares what his ERA is? Is he pitching better than Z or Prior? I would say no. But when he's on the hill, he wins. If I was a GM of another team, there's little chance that I would pay Maddux, because there would be no way to tell what kind of run support my team would give him, but clearly, in Chicago, the offense scores more runs for him and he gets the job done. You could have the lowest ERA in the business, but if your team doesnt score for you, you don't win, and for some reason, certain pitchers just can't get run support. Take a look at Clemens. He has literally pitched better than anyone in baseball this year, but what does his team have to show for his microscopic ERA?

 

I feel like this argument is like saying that the Cubs have the best offense because they have the highest avg. Again, Maddux is overpaid, but so are a lot of Cubs, by much greater margins imo. If he continues to win, why does anything else matter?

[Geech]

It's hard to explain here that the Maddux streak is actually pretty damn cool.

 

Even though it's just wins.

 

Even though it's just more wins strung out than say, Cy Young.

 

Even though wins suck and they don't count, even though every pitcher you ever talk to says they want to win, and even though they might not get the win, they want the team to win, but they just don't know any better, obviously. They should be getting all worked up over their WHIP and BABIP and whatever else.

 

The point to getting Maddux always was that he wins games. That's what he does. He wins. And he's won.

 

There's a big disconnect between internet fans and chicagoland fans on that point.

 

I'm on Maddux's side. Sorry. He's delivered more than I've seen ya'll deliver.

 

Is this irony?

[neely crenshaw]

run support! a truly misguided stat. i think you should look at the support in maddux's wins vs losses, not too mention runs allowed in wins. maddus has not won many slugfests. he has gotten some runs but he does not have 12-10 wins.

maddux is also the anti-stat when you talk about wins. he has won 15 games every year he has pitched. he has won with good teams, not so good teams, good offense,not so good offense, good defense and not so good defense. 16 years of winning fifteen is not about run support or luck...this is not bob welch of the oakland winning 25 once in his life...i would be willing to bet that if our 4 studs-z,wood,prior and maddux would all win 15 games..we would win the central. unfortunately, wood has never done it, prior has done it once and z will probably get his 2nd this year. if my no. 3 starter can win 15 and give me a shot in 8-10 more wins, i am in good shape!

[Peoriaman]

the key point here is we have much, much more pressing problems than Greg Maddux. He is an asset. This team, as constituted, will not be successful unless Wood and Prior pick up the slack. So far, they haven't.

 

I'll gladly take Maddux's 12-15 wins again next year. He is not our problem, no matter how much whining here is done about him.

[JC]

One final point about wins.

 

Maddux is 24th in the majors in run support for qualified starters at 5.51. Of the 23 players ahead of him, all of them have at least 12 wins (Maddux's total) except 5. Those include:

 

-2 Devil Rays starters

-Kris Benson with 9 wins

-Jamie Moyer with 11 wins for Seattle

-Chris Young with 11 wins for Texas.

 

Thus, I would argue it is telling that 19 of the the top 24 pitchers in the majors in terms of run support have the same number of wins as Maddux, or more. It certainly lend support to the idea that wins are a team statistic rather than a pitching stat.

 

For what its worth, Prior was at 4.69 and Z was at 4.71.

 

That's kinda my point though... we score more runs for Maddux, so who cares what his ERA is?

 

That is an alarming position to me. Do you think we score more runs just because Maddux is on the hill? I doubt you do. If so, there ought to be an investigation why the Cub offense can so easily turn it on and off, and why the hell it isn't turned on all the time!

 

If Greg continues his streak this year, it will largely be due to circumstances beyond his control. At least, beyond his control moreso than any other year.

 

I'm not trying to diminish his feat, though there is an amount that is incidental to this discussion. What I am trying to do is emphasis that he is overpaid and that the justifications for that overpayment are not in the best interests of the Cubs.

 

The issue and/or problem here is not Maddux. Rather, it is the organization and its evaluation process for FA's. As we approach the FA signing period, it is relevant to discuss the organization's history and approach to FA's in terms of both compensation and length of contract. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but with Maddux's option vesting this week, I thought it was ripe to discuss it. Thus, the thread.

[JC]

the key point here is we have much, much more pressing problems than Greg Maddux. He is an asset. This team, as constituted, will not be successful unless Wood and Prior pick up the slack. So far, they haven't.

 

I'll gladly take Maddux's 12-15 wins again next year. He is not our problem, no matter how much whining here is done about him.

 

Why does it have to be characterized as whining? Because it has taken up so many pages? Because it is contrary to how you feel about the situation? I find it ironic how most of the times when people describe another set of posts as "whining", that it is in fact there post that comes across as such.

 

Your key point is that we have more pressing problems than Greg Maddux. That doesn't mean it is, in fact, the key point.

[ConstableRabbit]

One final point about wins.

 

Maddux is 24th in the majors in run support for qualified starters at 5.51. Of the 23 players ahead of him, all of them have at least 12 wins (Maddux's total) except 5. Those include:

 

-2 Devil Rays starters

-Kris Benson with 9 wins

-Jamie Moyer with 11 wins for Seattle

-Chris Young with 11 wins for Texas.

 

Thus, I would argue it is telling that 19 of the the top 24 pitchers in the majors in terms of run support have the same number of wins as Maddux, or more. It certainly lend support to the idea that wins are a team statistic rather than a pitching stat.

 

For what its worth, Prior was at 4.69 and Z was at 4.71.

 

That's kinda my point though... we score more runs for Maddux, so who cares what his ERA is?

 

That is an alarming position to me. Do you think we score more runs just because Maddux is on the hill? I doubt you do. If so, there ought to be an investigation why the Cub offense can so easily turn it on and off, and why the hell it isn't turned on all the time!

 

If Greg continues his streak this year, it will largely be due to circumstances beyond his control. At least, beyond his control moreso than any other year.

 

I'm not trying to diminish his feat, though there is an amount that is incidental to this discussion. What I am trying to do is emphasis that he is overpaid and that the justifications for that overpayment are not in the best interests of the Cubs.

 

The issue and/or problem here is not Maddux. Rather, it is the organization and its evaluation process for FA's. As we approach the FA signing period, it is relevant to discuss the organization's history and approach to FA's in terms of both compensation and length of contract. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but with Maddux's option vesting this week, I thought it was ripe to discuss it. Thus, the thread.

 

I didn't mean they conciously score more for Maddux! Haha, I can see how that would sound alarming. I was just trying to say that there are several factors contributing to higher run support for certain pitchers, and imo some of these cannot be quantified.

 

I agree with your FA argument. As I stated earlier, if I was an MLB GM, I would almost certainly pay more attention to ERA or WHIP than wins, but when we're assessing Maddux's contributions to the team, wins have to be included, imo. I think when Greg was signed, the management was looking for some consistency (which, in all fairness they got) and perhaps some leadership in the clubhouse due to a young and maturing staff. Did they overpay? Yes. But I think that he's pretty much done what's been asked of him. (And yes, I know you're not blaming Maddux for his salary - this is clearly a front-office issue).

 

Here's a question though... it's quite the "what if":

 

Do you think we would be discussing this in such detail had the Cubs gone to the postseason in '04 and were well on their way this year?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Here's a question though... it's quite the "what if":

 

Do you think we would be discussing this in such detail had the Cubs gone to the postseason in '04 and were well on their way this year?

 

Probably. The option vesting was discussed at the time of the signing, and then even during last season.

[JC]

run support! a truly misguided stat. i think you should look at the support in maddux's wins vs losses, not too mention runs allowed in wins. maddus has not won many slugfests. he has gotten some runs but he does not have 12-10 wins.

maddux is also the anti-stat when you talk about wins. he has won 15 games every year he has pitched. he has won with good teams, not so good teams, good offense,not so good offense, good defense and not so good defense. 16 years of winning fifteen is not about run support or luck...this is not bob welch of the oakland winning 25 once in his life...i would be willing to bet that if our 4 studs-z,wood,prior and maddux would all win 15 games..we would win the central. unfortunately, wood has never done it, prior has done it once and z will probably get his 2nd this year. if my no. 3 starter can win 15 and give me a shot in 8-10 more wins, i am in good shape!

 

Run support, like most statistics, has its flaws. But, what do you make of the fact that 19 of the the top 24 run support receiving pitchers have at least 12 wins? Are we supposed to ignore that? Are correlations not supposed to be even attempted?

 

Maddux has certainly had his good days, particularly down the stretch, when run support wasn't needed. But, even if an individual breakdown of his wins and losses demonstrates that the bulk of his run support came during losses in which he was shelled, does that not detrimental to the argument that his contract was a good one? If your team scores 6,7,8, or 9 runs behind you, shouldn't you be winning those on a regular basis? If you aren't, wouldn't you agree that there is a problem that needs addressed at $9M?

Edited September 9, 2005 by JC

[ConstableRabbit]

Here's a question though... it's quite the "what if":

 

Do you think we would be discussing this in such detail had the Cubs gone to the postseason in '04 and were well on their way this year?

 

Probably. The option vesting was discussed at the time of the signing, and then even during last season.

 

Ah, I wasn't here then. It just kinda seemed like some "ARGH IM FRUSTRATED AND WE SUCK" venting, which is completely ok and natural.. especially when we are frustrasted and do suck.

Just curious.

[JC]

 

Here's a question though... it's quite the "what if":

 

Do you think we would be discussing this in such detail had the Cubs gone to the postseason in '04 and were well on their way this year?

 

I think it would merit discussion. However, if we were in the midst of a playoff push, I'd think it would be tabled for offseason debate.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Here's a question though... it's quite the "what if":

 

Do you think we would be discussing this in such detail had the Cubs gone to the postseason in '04 and were well on their way this year?

 

Probably. The option vesting was discussed at the time of the signing, and then even during last season.

 

Ah, I wasn't here then. It just kinda seemed like some "ARGH IM FRUSTRATED AND WE SUCK" venting, which is completely ok and natural.. especially when we are frustrasted and do suck.

Just curious.

 

Well, if you're feeling ambitious(or bored)....The Granddaddy of Maddux threads

[ConstableRabbit]

Here's a question though... it's quite the "what if":

 

Do you think we would be discussing this in such detail had the Cubs gone to the postseason in '04 and were well on their way this year?

 

Probably. The option vesting was discussed at the time of the signing, and then even during last season.

 

Ah, I wasn't here then. It just kinda seemed like some "ARGH IM FRUSTRATED AND WE SUCK" venting, which is completely ok and natural.. especially when we are frustrasted and do suck.

Just curious.

 

Well, if you're feeling ambitious(or bored)....The Granddaddy of Maddux threads

 

:shock:

[JC]

Here's a question though... it's quite the "what if":

 

Do you think we would be discussing this in such detail had the Cubs gone to the postseason in '04 and were well on their way this year?

 

Probably. The option vesting was discussed at the time of the signing, and then even during last season.

 

Ah, I wasn't here then. It just kinda seemed like some "ARGH IM FRUSTRATED AND WE SUCK" venting, which is completely ok and natural.. especially when we are frustrasted and do suck.

Just curious.

 

Well, if you're feeling ambitious(or bored)....The Granddaddy of Maddux threads

 

:shock:

 

It kind of just spiralled into a lot of sniping and mod testing at the end.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The Maddux contract discussion isn't a johnny-come-lately discussion. We've had it off and on since the signing as that thread above proves.

 

Certainly, had we won the World Series in 2004 or if we were making a play-off push now, we would likely not be as bothered by the fact that the option was reached.

 

For the record, I like Maddux. I was happy when we re-signed him. The amount of 6 million in 2004 was a good price for him as well, but it came with two steep 9 million dollar years. Maddux isn't a 9 million dollar pitcher. Would we be better off to spend that nine million elsewhere? I have no clue; the Cubs haven't always been the best allocators of resources.

[ConstableRabbit]

Here's a question though... it's quite the "what if":

 

Do you think we would be discussing this in such detail had the Cubs gone to the postseason in '04 and were well on their way this year?

 

Probably. The option vesting was discussed at the time of the signing, and then even during last season.

 

Ah, I wasn't here then. It just kinda seemed like some "ARGH IM FRUSTRATED AND WE SUCK" venting, which is completely ok and natural.. especially when we are frustrasted and do suck.

Just curious.

 

Well, if you're feeling ambitious(or bored)....The Granddaddy of Maddux threads

 

:shock:

 

It kind of just spiralled into a lot of sniping and mod testing at the end.

 

I checked this board weekly or so before joining and one of the things I love about it is how off-topic the posts get at times.

...i LIKE BIKES

[ConstableRabbit]

The Maddux contract discussion isn't a johnny-come-lately discussion. We've had it off and on since the signing as that thread above proves.

 

Certainly, had we won the World Series in 2004 or if we were making a play-off push now, we would likely not be as bothered by the fact that the option was reached.

 

For the record, I like Maddux. I was happy when we re-signed him. The amount of 6 million in 2004 was a good price for him as well, but it came with two steep 9 million dollar years. Maddux isn't a 9 million dollar pitcher. Would we be better off to spend that nine million elsewhere? I have no clue; the Cubs haven't always been the best allocators of resources.

 

I completely agree with that statement. I think most of us do. The real debate is why he's not worth 9 and how overpaid he is, not that we need to restate everything.

[JC]

In response to an earlier post regarding run support, in 2005 the Cubs have scored an average of:

 

-7 runs per Maddux win

-3.64 runs per Maddux loss

-4.4 runs per Maddux no-decision

[ConstableRabbit]

In response to an earlier post regarding run support, in 2005 the Cubs have scored an average of:

 

-7 runs per Maddux win

-3.64 runs per Maddux loss

-4.4 runs per Maddux no-decision

 

I'm curious as to how many runs he has given up in those games and how these totals compare to others in the league.

[JC]

In response to an earlier post regarding run support, in 2005 the Cubs have scored an average of:

 

-7 runs per Maddux win

-3.64 runs per Maddux loss

-4.4 runs per Maddux no-decision

 

I'm curious as to how many runs he has given up in those games and how these totals compare to others in the league.

 

Go for it. That is too ambitious for me.

 

EDIT: I deleted the remainder of my post as it didn't really convey what I wanted it to.