MADDUX VESTING PARTY!!!

[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.

 

Go for it. That is too ambitious for me.

 

However, to me, this is why averages count. His Earned Run Average is that of the entire year. Its sitting around 4.27, or something like that. The average run support for Maddux per start was 5.51, but that was questioned, so I provided the breakdown above.

 

At some point, unless there is an obvious statistical exception that can be pointed to, averages need to be trusted for what they are, for what they represent.

 

It's also too ambitious for me.

 

I was just trying to make the point that if an offense happens to score more for a particular pitcher (who knows the reason, but it happens), I could care less if that particular pitcher has a higher ERA.

 

Prior's ERA is 3.69 and his Run Support Average is 4.69

Maddux's ERA is 4.28 and his Run Support Average is 5.51

 

When Prior pitches, the Cubs are +1.00 run

When Maddux pitches, the Cubs are +1.23 runs

 

Does this mean that he (Greg) is a better pitcher statistically? Clearly, no.

Does it mean that he has been more important to the team this year than Prior? The answer is not so cut and dry.

 

The bottom line in baseball is scoring more than your opponent. That's how you win games. When Maddux is on the hill, that occurs to a greater extent than when Prior is pitching. Is he worth $9 million this year? Nope. But I can understand why he may be making more than Prior based strictly on performance. (Clearly all other things considered, Prior has the advantage because of his potential and age!)

[Mark Priors Calves]

Here's the latest from resident Cub embarassment, Dusty Baker, concerning Greg Maddux.

 

"It's up to him," said the skipper. "He told me a month ago that he wants to finish strong, and if he finishes strong like he's doing, then he'll probably want to come back. He doesn't want to embarrass himself. It's not about the money for him, it's about the quality of play."

[CaliforniaRaisin]

The true injustice is the obscene salary Wood will make next year, not that Maddux will make 9 million. At least you can count on Maddux taking the hill.

 

The thing is, Kerry Wood's contract was fair at the time, coming off his 2002-2003 seasons. Greg Maddux, on the other hand, was definitely being overpaid on this contract given his decline.

 

Both are overpaid, obviously Kerry more so since he has pitched so little the last few years.

[Derwood]

Sorry to belabor this "Wins vs. Stats" debate, but I pose this question:

 

Who is the better pitcher:

 

PITCHER A:

 

20-13, 4.85 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, .300 OBA, received 6.2 runs per game of support.

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-7, 3.25 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .234 OBA, received 3.9 runs per game of support.

 

 

Pitcher A "just wins", but those wins are more circumstancial than earned, while Pitcher B has been a better performer, but hasn't found the right days to pitch.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Sorry to belabor this "Wins vs. Stats" debate, but I pose this question:

 

Who is the better pitcher:

 

PITCHER A:

 

20-13, 4.85 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, .300 OBA, received 6.2 runs per game of support.

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-7, 3.25 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .234 OBA, received 3.9 runs per game of support.

 

 

Pitcher A "just wins", but those wins are more circumstancial than earned, while Pitcher B has been a better performer, but hasn't found the right days to pitch.

 

I'm going with pitcher B, and it isn't even close.

[Derwood]

Sorry to belabor this "Wins vs. Stats" debate, but I pose this question:

 

Who is the better pitcher:

 

PITCHER A:

 

20-13, 4.85 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, .300 OBA, received 6.2 runs per game of support.

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-7, 3.25 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .234 OBA, received 3.9 runs per game of support.

 

 

Pitcher A "just wins", but those wins are more circumstancial than earned, while Pitcher B has been a better performer, but hasn't found the right days to pitch.

 

I'm going with pitcher B, and it isn't even close.

 

Right, of course it isn't. My point being that many people here are arguing for Maddux because he falls under the PITCHER A type (those aren't Maddux's numbers, obviously, but he isn't winning because he dominates)

[katway]

Who would we rather have -- Maddux @ $9M in 2006 or Randy Johnson @ $32M for the next two years (combined)? Given their numbers this year, Maddux is a relative bargain.

[Geech]

What's that supposed to prove, though? I can come up with a lot of pitchers I'd rather have right now than Maddux.

[neely crenshaw]

Sorry to belabor this "Wins vs. Stats" debate, but I pose this question:

 

Who is the better pitcher:

 

PITCHER A:

 

20-13, 4.85 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, .300 OBA, received 6.2 runs per game of support.

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-7, 3.25 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .234 OBA, received 3.9 runs per game of support.

 

 

Pitcher A "just wins", but those wins are more circumstancial than earned, while Pitcher B has been a better performer, but hasn't found the right days to pitch.

 

what if pitcher just wins for 15 straight years?is it still circumstancial?

and what if pitcher misses 20 starts in a 2 year period with those stats?

[neely crenshaw]

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.

 

However, to me, this is why averages count. His Earned Run Average is that of the entire year. Its sitting around 4.27, or something like that. The average run support for Maddux per start was 5.51, but that was questioned, so I provided the breakdown above.

 

At some point, unless there is an obvious statistical exception that can be pointed to, averages need to be trusted for what they are, for what they represent.

 

It's also too ambitious for me.

 

I was just trying to make the point that if an offense happens to score more for a particular pitcher (who knows the reason, but it happens), I could care less if that particular pitcher has a higher ERA.

 

Prior's ERA is 3.69 and his Run Support Average is 4.69

Maddux's ERA is 4.28 and his Run Support Average is 5.51

 

When Prior pitches, the Cubs are +1.00 run

When Maddux pitches, the Cubs are +1.23 runs

 

Does this mean that he (Greg) is a better pitcher statistically? Clearly, no.

Does it mean that he has been more important to the team this year than Prior? The answer is not so cut and dry.

 

The bottom line in baseball is scoring more than your opponent. That's how you win games. When Maddux is on the hill, that occurs to a greater extent than when Prior is pitching. Is he worth $9 million this year? Nope. But I can understand why he may be making more than Prior based strictly on performance. (Clearly all other things considered, Prior has the advantage because of his potential and age!)

 

 

nice to see you do some stats. next time you may want to do them correctly. you can not count all the runs allowed in his starts against him. can't blame him for his relievers work.

maddux has given up 22 runs in his 12 wins. less than 2 per start. his worse ouiting was the one a few weeks back. he gave up 4 in a 11-4 complete game victory. he gave up 2 in the eighth while he was up 11-2 and finishing the game to save the bullpen(do we remember that) he could have easily be out after 7. he was at his highest ptich total but stayed in to help the team.

he has 2 other games that the cubs won big 14-6,11-5 but maddux gave up only 3 in each.

for the record,the he has given up 0,2,1,4,0,2,3,3,3,2,0,2 in his 12 wins....thank god he has all that offensive support! he has not won a single game where his offense won it for him.

[Derwood]

Sorry to belabor this "Wins vs. Stats" debate, but I pose this question:

 

Who is the better pitcher:

 

PITCHER A:

 

20-13, 4.85 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, .300 OBA, received 6.2 runs per game of support.

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-7, 3.25 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .234 OBA, received 3.9 runs per game of support.

 

 

Pitcher A "just wins", but those wins are more circumstancial than earned, while Pitcher B has been a better performer, but hasn't found the right days to pitch.

 

what if pitcher just wins for 15 straight years?is it still circumstancial?

and what if pitcher misses 20 starts in a 2 year period with those stats?

 

No, it's not circumstancial that Maddux won 15+ for all those years. In fact, he was arguably the best pitcher in baseball for 10-12 of those years. But you can't begin to tell me that this year's version of Maddux even resembles those of the 4 Cy Young Awards.

[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.

 

Go for it. That is too ambitious for me.

 

However, to me, this is why averages count. His Earned Run Average is that of the entire year. Its sitting around 4.27, or something like that. The average run support for Maddux per start was 5.51, but that was questioned, so I provided the breakdown above.

 

At some point, unless there is an obvious statistical exception that can be pointed to, averages need to be trusted for what they are, for what they represent.

 

It's also too ambitious for me.

 

I was just trying to make the point that if an offense happens to score more for a particular pitcher (who knows the reason, but it happens), I could care less if that particular pitcher has a higher ERA.

 

Prior's ERA is 3.69 and his Run Support Average is 4.69

Maddux's ERA is 4.28 and his Run Support Average is 5.51

 

When Prior pitches, the Cubs are +1.00 run

When Maddux pitches, the Cubs are +1.23 runs

 

Does this mean that he (Greg) is a better pitcher statistically? Clearly, no.

Does it mean that he has been more important to the team this year than Prior? The answer is not so cut and dry.

 

The bottom line in baseball is scoring more than your opponent. That's how you win games. When Maddux is on the hill, that occurs to a greater extent than when Prior is pitching. Is he worth $9 million this year? Nope. But I can understand why he may be making more than Prior based strictly on performance. (Clearly all other things considered, Prior has the advantage because of his potential and age!)

 

 

nice to see you do some stats. next time you may want to do them correctly. you can not count all the runs allowed in his starts against him. can't blame him for his relievers work.

maddux has given up 22 runs in his 12 wins. less than 2 per start. his worse ouiting was the one a few weeks back. he gave up 4 in a 11-4 complete game victory. he gave up 2 in the eighth while he was up 11-2 and finishing the game to save the bullpen(do we remember that) he could have easily be out after 7. he was at his highest ptich total but stayed in to help the team.

he has 2 other games that the cubs won big 14-6,11-5 but maddux gave up only 3 in each.

for the record,the he has given up 0,2,1,4,0,2,3,3,3,2,0,2 in his 12 wins....thank god he has all that offensive support! he has not won a single game where his offense won it for him.

 

?

 

I'm a little confused at what you're saying. I think Maddux is very valuable to the team and.. you seem to agree with me? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding whatever sarcasm might be laced in your post, I've been on some pretty strong painkillers since thurs, but I was trying to make the point that Maddux is valuable and a winner regardless of his era. I could care less if a pitcher gives up more runs if he gets the offense to offset those runs.

[ConstableRabbit]

Sorry to belabor this "Wins vs. Stats" debate, but I pose this question:

 

Who is the better pitcher:

 

PITCHER A:

 

20-13, 4.85 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, .300 OBA, received 6.2 runs per game of support.

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-7, 3.25 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .234 OBA, received 3.9 runs per game of support.

 

 

Pitcher A "just wins", but those wins are more circumstancial than earned, while Pitcher B has been a better performer, but hasn't found the right days to pitch.

 

I'm going with pitcher B, and it isn't even close.

 

Correct, pitcher B is clearly a better pitcher, but what good has he been to his team compared to pitcher A? His performance has been outstanding, he's done everything he could to help the team, but it wasn't enough. I feel for him and his record.. it's not his fault he's 11-7, but the bottom line is that when he is on the mound, his team has won 11 games, but when pitcher A is on the mound, the team has won 20.

[Larry Horse]

The true injustice is the obscene salary Wood will make next year, not that Maddux will make 9 million. At least you can count on Maddux taking the hill.

 

The thing is, Kerry Wood's contract was fair at the time, coming off his 2002-2003 seasons. Greg Maddux, on the other hand, was definitely being overpaid on this contract given his decline.

 

Both are overpaid, obviously Kerry more so since he has pitched so little the last few years.

 

No way was Kerry's contract fair at that time. There are few elite pitchers who deserve 12 mil per year and there is no way that he is one of them. If he was coming off three or four 20 win seasons then maybe, but no way did he deserve that coming off a 12 and 14 win season. I don't think Roger Clemens is even making 12 mil a year.

[Geech]

Clemens is making something like 18 million this year.

[Geech]

Correct, pitcher B is clearly a better pitcher, but what good has he been to his team compared to pitcher A? His performance has been outstanding, he's done everything he could to help the team, but it wasn't enough. I feel for him and his record.. it's not his fault he's 11-7, but the bottom line is that when he is on the mound, his team has won 11 games, but when pitcher A is on the mound, the team has won 20.

 

I guess no one ever told Hendry to find lucky players instead of good players.

[ConstableRabbit]

Correct, pitcher B is clearly a better pitcher, but what good has he been to his team compared to pitcher A? His performance has been outstanding, he's done everything he could to help the team, but it wasn't enough. I feel for him and his record.. it's not his fault he's 11-7, but the bottom line is that when he is on the mound, his team has won 11 games, but when pitcher A is on the mound, the team has won 20.

 

I guess no one ever told Hendry to find lucky players instead of good players.

 

This is kinda frustrating. I've said this several times:

 

When looking for a free agent, you don't look at wins as much as era. End of story. You have no idea how the pitcher is going to win with the new team.

 

However, during the course of a season, a stat like era, while showing how good a pitcher's performance is, doesnt necessarily show how valuable a pitcher is to the team. Wins, imo, do.

 

Listen, I think the pitcher with the best performance should win the Cy Young... this year, it should go to Clemens. But to say that he has been the most valuable pitcher to his team. Do you get the gist of what I'm saying?

[Geech]

I do get what you're saying and I think it's ridiculous. I'm not going to attribute any value to a pitcher for something as out of their control as a handful of wins.

[ConstableRabbit]

I do get what you're saying and I think it's ridiculous. I'm not going to attribute any value to a pitcher for something as out of their control as a handful of wins.

 

Why do you think certain pitchers get more run support than others on the same team? As long as my team scores more than the other team, I'm happy...

[Geech]

Why do you think certain pitchers get more run support than others on the same team? As long as my team scores more than the other team, I'm happy...

 

I'm happy, too, but it's by no virtue of the pitcher that the offense scored runs.

[ConstableRabbit]

Why do you think certain pitchers get more run support than others on the same team? As long as my team scores more than the other team, I'm happy...

 

I'm happy, too, but it's by no virtue of the pitcher that the offense scored runs.

 

Oh, I wasn't crediting the pitcher for that. I was just saying that because for whatever reason the team wins more when he pitches, he becomes more valuable to the team.

 

I'm not trying to equate "most valuable to the team" with "best pitcher on the team", or "best pitching performance".

[Geech]

You're using an odd definition of 'value', then. Wins should not be attributed to a pitcher's individual value.

[AramisRamirez]

maddux stats for 2006:

 

6.55 ERA

209 IP

58 MPH fastball

22 MPH changeup

15 strike out's

15 wins and 20 losses :shock:

 

meanwhile, wood will finish the season with 44 IP and prior will finish with 110 IP. zambrano will pitch 300 innings, record a 1.05 ERA and finish with 5 wins, 0 losses, and 30 no decisions do to no run support.

 

dooood where's macias??

[Backtobanks]

It is interesting how statistics can be used in different ways. MVP voting is weighted by being on a winning team, even though another player has a better season. Pitchers who have a lot of wins are not necessarily considered as good as a pitcher who has a better ERA. I think there ought to be 2 awards: MVP (picked from a winning team) and Player of the Year (picked from any team). As for the argument about Maddux, I think we can all agree that he's not the pitcher he used to be and isn't worth $9 million next year, but he is still amazing to watch and his $9 million won't be the biggest problem with the Cubs next year.

[ConstableRabbit]

It is interesting how statistics can be used in different ways. MVP voting is weighted by being on a winning team, even though another player has a better season. Pitchers who have a lot of wins are not necessarily considered as good as a pitcher who has a better ERA. I think there ought to be 2 awards: MVP (picked from a winning team) and Player of the Year (picked from any team). As for the argument about Maddux, I think we can all agree that he's not the pitcher he used to be and isn't worth $9 million next year, but he is still amazing to watch and his $9 million won't be the biggest problem with the Cubs next year.

 

There has definately been some talk of that on the boards, but I dont know of any serious discussion among baseball's brass or "the old school".