Nomar Open to a Position Change?

[Sarcastic]

Not necessarily. As you say the Cubs also allow a lot of walks (and therefore baserunners). That could mean that while the strikeouts mean less balls in play, the importance of converting those balls in play into outs may be greater simply because not doing so will directly result in more runners scoring relative to teams that allow less baserunners.

 

Of course allowing fewer hits helps, but good fielding helps a team less if that team doesn't allow many balls in play. I'd be interested to know what the Cub's ratios are for Ks, BBs, HRs, and balls in play per PA. I'd bet they allow fewer balls in play than many other teams.

 

Here's something to consider. The Cubs have the second best H/9 in the NL. They have the fourth worst BB/9 in the NL. Which stat do you think looks problematic?

 

The Cubs this year have also allowed a lot of home runs, so keeping runners off the bases is potentially more important than usual, because I suspect that the Cubs allow a greater percentage of baserunners to score relative to what the usual team would allow with the same baserunner/strikeout ratios. In fact, I don't suspect, I can pretty much say that for a fact. The home run is by far the single worst thing a pitcher can allow if his aim is to keep runs off the board.

 

Yes, but the fact that they give up homers is another reason that fielding becomes less important. Fielding only affects balls in play. The Cubs do not allow a ton of balls in play. You can't field a homer. Keeping baserunners off is important, but because they allow relatively few balls in play, the impact of an upgraded defense would be weaker than for most other teams. The problem isn't hits, it's walks, which our fielders have no control over.

 

One other thing. A high strikeout/high walk staff obviously works very deep into counts, and therefore throws plenty of pitches as it is. That makes the pitch limiting effects of good fielding even more important, because you if you give away outs and baserunners in the field and you have pitchers that naturally work deep in counts, you're likely to see your starters out of games by the fifth and sixth innings. That has been the case lately with Prior quite often.

 

Sure, but once again, with the Cubs staff the impact of fielding on pitch counts is minimized. A good defense won't stop our aces from going into multiple 5+ pitch PAs in which the final result is a K or a BB, as it often is. Now if the staff was full of finesse pitchers, we'd be a lot less successful with shabby fielding, but power pitchers will rack up the pitches with or withoout a solid defense.

 

I'm not saying upgrading the fielding isn't worth considering, but in practical terms, improving the fielding probably means downgrading the offense, and I don't think that is a good trade.

[CubfaninCA]

Pitching and fielding's more than half the game. I'd say at least 60-70%.

So you think that Neifi Perez (assuming he is/was the best-defending SS around) is more valuable than Manny Ramirez? Should Ozzie Smith be considered the best player of all time instead of Babe Ruth?

 

'Cause if you think that defense is that much more important than hitting, you pretty much have to answer yes to both questions.

 

How did you draw that conclusion?? Pitching makes up most of that 60-70%.

[erik316wttn]

Ptiching- 47.5 %

 

Hitting: 47.5%

 

Fielding: 5%

[Tim]

I've never really believed that pitching & defense is more than 50% of the game. Can anyone explain why they think it is so? Or is it simply because people repeat it so often?

[CubfaninCA]

I've never really believed that pitching & defense is more than 50% of the game. Can anyone explain why they think it is so? Or is it simply because people repeat it so often?

 

The Yankees over the past 10 years is a good representative of the importance of pitching. Their hitting has gotten better, while their pitching has declined. The Yankees won titles when they had Wells, El Duque, Pettite and Clemens pitching strong.

[sethuel1]

I've never really believed that pitching & defense is more than 50% of the game. Can anyone explain why they think it is so? Or is it simply because people repeat it so often?

 

Well, batting accounts for slightly less than half of win shares:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/2004-win-shares-have-arrived

[Diffusion]

Not necessarily. As you say the Cubs also allow a lot of walks (and therefore baserunners). That could mean that while the strikeouts mean less balls in play, the importance of converting those balls in play into outs may be greater simply because not doing so will directly result in more runners scoring relative to teams that allow less baserunners.

 

Of course allowing fewer hits helps, but good fielding helps a team less if that team doesn't allow many balls in play. I'd be interested to know what the Cub's ratios are for Ks, BBs, HRs, and balls in play per PA. I'd bet they allow fewer balls in play than many other teams.

 

Are you just going to completely ignore what I wrote? You preached the exact same unproven mantra about "good fielding helps a team less if that doesn't allow many balls in play" before and after my response, and paid absolutely no consideration to what I said, instead writing something about "of course allowing fewer hits helps", which is nothing like what I said. If you didn't understand what I was on about, then just say so.

 

I'll explain. While a lot of strikeouts mean less balls in play, a lot of walks (and therefore baserunners) could mean that when there's a ball in play, it becomes more important to turn that ball in play into an out(s) than would otherwise be the case. For instance, it's more important to turn a ball in play into an out(s) with the bases loaded than it is with the bases empty, because the result of bad fielding with the bases loaded gifts the other team more runs than bad fielding with the bases empty. And walks are a really good way of ensuring that the bases aren't empty. So, it's possible that while strikeouts mean less balls in play, walks mean that the conversion of each of those balls in play is more important, and that despite there being fewer chances for the fielders due to strikeouts, the overall importance of fielding is either diminished less than might be thought, not at all or actually increased because of the walks putting the Cubs in more situations where they can less afford to gift the opposition an extra out in the inning.

 

Here's something to consider. The Cubs have the second best H/9 in the NL. They have the fourth worst BB/9 in the NL. Which stat do you think looks problematic?

 

Obviously the fact that they've allowed so many walks is the greater problem. Ideally you'd have the Cubs not allowing any hits because they strike out every single batter, and you'd also have the Cubs never allowing any walks, hit by pitches. Or home runs. Nothing. Just 27 up, and 27 sent back to the dugout after swinging and missing. 81 pitches too, every one a strike. But it's not as simple as that. It's not as simple as saying, good, "you've got the strikeouts and the hits allowed in the right place, now walk less batters too".

 

Do you not see that the same strikeouts that are limiting those hits are perhaps also the cause of the walks? The Cubs don't pitch to contact, instead pitching to the strikeout. That leads to them throwing a lot of pitches, and getting deep into counts. A lot of 3-1 and 3-2 counts. That's what's leading to both the strikeouts and the walks.

 

The walks are a problem, but if you get the Cubs to limit the walks, you're most probably going to see the strikeouts take a dive and the hits shoot up a bit - more than improving your performance, you're just going to be redistributing it differently. There are only two real ways to improve performance, assuming that the Cubs' high strikeout plan isn't flawed and putting them at a disadvantage relative to pitch to contact plans that the Cardinals have (and I don't know whether it is flawed or not, but I hope not). One, attain or develop better pitchers than the ones you've already got. Two, attain or develop better fielders.

 

The Cubs this year have also allowed a lot of home runs, so keeping runners off the bases is potentially more important than usual, because I suspect that the Cubs allow a greater percentage of baserunners to score relative to what the usual team would allow with the same baserunner/strikeout ratios. In fact, I don't suspect, I can pretty much say that for a fact. The home run is by far the single worst thing a pitcher can allow if his aim is to keep runs off the board.

 

Yes, but the fact that they give up homers is another reason that fielding becomes less important. Fielding only affects balls in play. The Cubs do not allow a ton of balls in play. You can't field a homer. Keeping baserunners off is important, but because they allow relatively few balls in play, the impact of an upgraded defense would be weaker than for most other teams. The problem isn't hits, it's walks, which our fielders have no control over.

 

I'm not sure why you don't get this. If there's a runner on base when a home run is hit, that runner scores.

 

If you allow a lot of home runs, as the Cubs have this year (I don't know whether this is a worrying long-term trend though, it may just be a blip), keeping runners off the bases in front of home runs is pretty important.

 

Now, as with before, you keep runners off the bases either with better pitchers or with better fielders.

 

Now the Cubs have a pretty talented pitching staff. Mark Prior and Carlos Zambrano are among the best pitchers in baseball, and Kerry Wood's natural ability is also beyond question. Jerome Williams has significant potential, a lot of it at this stage unrealised. Greg Maddux is fadding fast, but the Cubs are contractually tied to him. In the bullpen, Dempster has proven reasonably effective, and Wuertz, Novoa and Ohman have a lot of good stuff between them. A fully healthy Williamson has closer stuff. There's a pretty solid core there of good pitchers.

 

On the other hand the Cubs have pretty rubbish fielding, they're defensively above average at just two positions right now - Lee and Burnitz (assuming that Nomar is SS, Rammy 3B and Hairy CF). And those are two of three least important defensive positions! And Burnitz could and probably should be packing his bags at the end of the year.

 

So is it going to be easier to upgrade our pitching or our fielding?

 

One other thing. A high strikeout/high walk staff obviously works very deep into counts, and therefore throws plenty of pitches as it is. That makes the pitch limiting effects of good fielding even more important, because you if you give away outs and baserunners in the field and you have pitchers that naturally work deep in counts, you're likely to see your starters out of games by the fifth and sixth innings. That has been the case lately with Prior quite often.

 

Sure, but once again, with the Cubs staff the impact of fielding on pitch counts is minimized. A good defense won't stop our aces from going into multiple 5+ pitch PAs in which the final result is a K or a BB, as it often is. Now if the staff was full of finesse pitchers, we'd be a lot less successful with shabby fielding, but power pitchers will rack up the pitches with or withoout a solid defense.

 

And they'll rack up more with poor fielding. If a hitter puts a ball in play and it's not turned into an out, not only does the runner reach, but the pitcher has to get another out. And thus potentially an extra 5+ pitch PAs, and if the final result of that is a BB, another, and so on. With the error the inning could have been over ages ago, and the pitcher thrown a lot less pitches. Consider Sergio Mitre's inning against the Padres (which is the first example that pops into my head)...

 

Bottom 5th: San Diego (Cubs leading 2-1)

- S. Burroughs lined out to second

- A. Eaton singled to left

- D. Roberts reached on bunt single to pitcher, A. Eaton to second

- G. Blum grounded into fielder's choice, A. Eaton to third, D. Roberts out at second, A. Eaton scored, G. Blum to second on shortstop N. Perez's throwing error [/b]

 

Neifi threw away a double play ball. The inning could have been over and no runs have scored, the Cubs still leading 2-1 and Mitre back in the clubhouse having thrown 61 pitches through 5 frames.

 

Instead, one run was already in and there were runners on second and third and just two outs. And then all this followed....

 

- R. Klesko walked

- B. Giles walked, G. Blum to third, R. Klesko to second

- P. Nevin singled to left, G. Blum and R. Klesko scored, B. Giles to second

- R. Novoa relieved S. Mitre

- R. Hernandez singled to left, B. Giles scored, P. Nevin to second

- K. Greene struck out swinging

 

Mitre threw another 12 pitches, and didn't get another out. Another two runs scored, and it was still 1st/2nd 2 outs when he left. Novoa came in and required another 8 pitches to get the third out, but not before he'd allowed one of the inherited runners to score.

 

Who knows what would have happened had Neifi found Derrek Lee with the throw on the double play ball. Maybe Mitre would have collapsed the next inning. But the error meant that the Cubs ended up throwing 20 more pitches to get through 5 innings, and they were trailing 5-2 when they went to the top of the sixth rather than leading 2-1. The Cubs went on to lose the game 6-2.

 

But hey, "fielding schmielding we've got a high strikeout staff"!

 

Of course, Neifi for the rest of the year has been pretty terrific defensively. It would have been more apt had it been Ramirez or Walker or Nomar or Barrett or Dubois that had made the stupid play. Anyway, I don't think my point is weakened just because the critical error that I'm using as an example was made by a normally very good defensive player. The point is that you want to make as few such critical errors as possible.

 

I'm not saying upgrading the fielding isn't worth considering, but in practical terms, improving the fielding probably means downgrading the offense, and I don't think that is a good trade.

 

Now that's the bigger question. Like I said originally...

 

What the optimal offence is relative to the optimal defence, I don't know, but I suspect that the Cubs right now are too offence orientated. Barrett at C, Walker at 2B, Nomar at SS, Ramirez at 3B, Murton and Hairston in the OF, there are 6 positions currently that at the very best are merely average, if not below. Of course, they all (with the glaring exception of Hairston) provide either excellent offence relative to their position or excellent offence relative to their position relative to what they're being paid, so it does give the Cubs a bit of a dilemna as to how to keep such excellent offence/value for money at the same time as improving their defence. I'm not convinced that it's possible.

 

If it's not possible, or not widely possible at least, then the Cubs have to come up with a another way of achieving the same effect. More big bats would probably do the trick, but that'll be more expensive. Ah, suck it up.

 

But it's right that we should be discussing which is the most cost-effective way to improve the team. It's not right that you should be suggesting that fielding isn't important or ignoring possible caveats to the unproven mantra that strikeouts = defence less important.

[Diffusion]

I've never really believed that pitching & defense is more than 50% of the game. Can anyone explain why they think it is so? Or is it simply because people repeat it so often?

 

Pitching and fielding together is half the game, hitting being the other half. Actually, because in the long run good pitching/decent hitting wins more ballgames than good hitting/decent pitching, the pitching and fielding is slightly more than half. Why is it better? Well, if your starters allow less baserunners, they should throw less pitches, and if they throw less pitches, they should be able to throw more innings before they reach certain pitch counts. That in turn means less bullpen innings, which means that your relievers, on top of having better defence behind them, ought to be fresher, which gives you more effective pitching options, which can help you prevent further runs. If your starters and fielding is effective enough, you may not be able to find work for everyone in your bullpen, so you may be able to run with less pitchers on your staff, so you can have more bench options, which means more in-game flexibility, which, if exploited by the manager, can mean more runs for the offence, or still even better defence and less runs allowed. Furthermore, a pitcher that trusts his defence can be more effective at doing his job as a pitcher, partially because the confidence of his effective fielders rubs off on him, partially because there's no ineffective fielding to rattle him, partially because effective fielding can inspire him to raise his own game. An effective pitcher is often confident in himself too, and therefore better able to get over poor pitches, innings and outings, because he trusts himself and his own ability. Finally, an effective and efficient pitcher that throws less pitches is theoretically less likely to get injured or wear down as the season goes on, and fielders are less likely to get injured because there are less plays to make in the field and they spend less time in the field, which is less sapping for them too, especially catchers. The less tired your best players are the less off-days they need. And so on and so on and so on.

 

Or, in other words, look at the Rockies.

[Tim]

...

 

And they'll rack up more with poor fielding. If a hitter puts a ball in play and it's not turned into an out, not only does the runner reach, but the pitcher has to get another out. And thus potentially an extra 5+ pitch PAs, and if the final result of that is a BB, another, and so on. With the error the inning could have been over ages ago, and the pitcher thrown a lot less pitches. Consider Sergio Mitre's inning against the Padres (which is the first example that pops into my head)...

 

Bottom 5th: San Diego (Cubs leading 2-1)

- S. Burroughs lined out to second

- A. Eaton singled to left

- D. Roberts reached on bunt single to pitcher, A. Eaton to second

- G. Blum grounded into fielder's choice, A. Eaton to third, D. Roberts out at second, A. Eaton scored, G. Blum to second on shortstop N. Perez's throwing error [/b]

 

Neifi threw away a double play ball. The inning could have been over and no runs have scored, the Cubs still leading 2-1 and Mitre back in the clubhouse having thrown 61 pitches through 5 frames.

 

Instead, one run was already in and there were runners on second and third and just two outs. And then all this followed....

 

- R. Klesko walked

- B. Giles walked, G. Blum to third, R. Klesko to second

- P. Nevin singled to left, G. Blum and R. Klesko scored, B. Giles to second

- R. Novoa relieved S. Mitre

- R. Hernandez singled to left, B. Giles scored, P. Nevin to second

- K. Greene struck out swinging

 

Mitre threw another 12 pitches, and didn't get another out. Another two runs scored, and it was still 1st/2nd 2 outs when he left. Novoa came in and required another 8 pitches to get the third out, but not before he'd allowed one of the inherited runners to score.

 

Who knows what would have happened had Neifi found Derrek Lee with the throw on the double play ball. Maybe Mitre would have collapsed the next inning. But the error meant that the Cubs ended up throwing 20 more pitches to get through 5 innings, and they were trailing 5-2 when they went to the top of the sixth rather than leading 2-1. The Cubs went on to lose the game 6-2.

 

But hey, "fielding schmielding we've got a high strikeout staff"!

 

Of course, Neifi for the rest of the year has been pretty terrific defensively. It would have been more apt had it been Ramirez or Walker or Nomar or Barrett or Dubois that had made the stupid play. Anyway, I don't think my point is weakened just because the critical error that I'm using as an example was made by a normally very good defensive player. The point is that you want to make as few such critical errors as possible.

Actually, I was at that game with Serena & BBB. It was one of the worst innings I've seen a major league team play defensively, though only one error was charged. The bunt single to Mitre should have been handled. After the botched DP, Mitre was clearly shaken. I said to Serena that bad things were about to happen and that Larry should be running out to the mound. He didn't. After the two walks, Larry finally went out there and talked with Mitre to calm him down. It worked and Mitre proceeded to get the ground ball he needed to get out of the jam. However, the base hit was a ground ball that passed a few feet to ARam's left that he made a piss-poor effort at (don't know if the legs were bothering him or what, but he seemed to barely try for the ball). Novoa came in to relieve Mitre and...same exact thing. Grounder right past Aramis.

 

Agonizing to watch and entirely predictable sequence of events.

[Tim]

I've never really believed that pitching & defense is more than 50% of the game. Can anyone explain why they think it is so? Or is it simply because people repeat it so often?

 

Pitching and fielding together is half the game, hitting being the other half. Actually, because in the long run good pitching/decent hitting wins more ballgames than good hitting/decent pitching, the pitching and fielding is slightly more than half. Why is it better? Well, if your starters allow less baserunners, they should throw less pitches, and if they throw less pitches, they should be able to throw more innings before they reach certain pitch counts. That in turn means less bullpen innings, which means that your relievers, on top of having better defence behind them, ought to be fresher, which gives you more effective pitching options, which can help you prevent further runs. If your starters and fielding is effective enough, you may not be able to find work for everyone in your bullpen, so you may be able to run with less pitchers on your staff, so you can have more bench options, which means more in-game flexibility, which, if exploited by the manager, can mean more runs for the offence, or still even better defence and less runs allowed. Furthermore, a pitcher that trusts his defence can be more effective at doing his job as a pitcher, partially because the confidence of his effective fielders rubs off on him, partially because there's no ineffective fielding to rattle him, partially because effective fielding can inspire him to raise his own game. An effective pitcher is often confident in himself too, and therefore better able to get over poor pitches, innings and outings, because he trusts himself and his own ability. Finally, an effective and efficient pitcher that throws less pitches is theoretically less likely to get injured or wear down as the season goes on, and fielders are less likely to get injured because there are less plays to make in the field and they spend less time in the field, which is less sapping for them too, especially catchers. The less tired your best players are the less off-days they need. And so on and so on and so on.

 

Or, in other words, look at the Rockies.

First, for an individual game:

 

If your offense is that much incrementally better, the exact same effect happens to the other team. You get their starters out of the game that much sooner, getting to the soft underbelly of the opposing pitching staff, leading to even more runs. Which leads, of course, to even more victories.

 

Since it works both ways, I'm not sure I'm convinced that P&D is inherently worth more than O. Unless you're arguing that an incremental increase in offensive talent gives a linear increase in runs scored, while an incremental increase in p&d talent gives an exponential (or at least non-linear) increase in runs allowed.

 

For the long haul:

 

The effect of being in the field more during the year may lead to more injuries, wearing down, etc., but my thinking is that this would be a small enough effect that it wouldn't be statistically significant. But that's a pure matter of opinion.

 

Have there ever been any data-based studies that showed that denying runs is a more effective winning strategy than scoring them?

[biittner77]

Wouldn't it be a good idea for the Cubs, since they have some money to spend, to front load Giles contract? It seems to me that as he ages his value will go down and keeping his salary in tune with that would help the Cubs move him if they had to.

 

It would make sense from a baseball standpoint but the Trib probably doesn't look at this from a "we have the money let's spend it now" perspective when they can defer payment for at least 2 years. A big corporation like the Trib. would invest that money to make it grow rather than make a bigger, up front payment.

 

There's also a psychological element. Would Giles, or anyone else for that matter, be as motivated if he has to take a sizeable pay cut 2 years in a row? I don't know much about Giles but sometimes you get what you pay for. Deon gets paid $4 million so Deon doesn't have to produce as much as Deon did when he made $6 million.

 

Or is it Leon?

[UBlink]

Wouldn't it be a good idea for the Cubs, since they have some money to spend, to front load Giles contract? It seems to me that as he ages his value will go down and keeping his salary in tune with that would help the Cubs move him if they had to.

 

It would make sense from a baseball standpoint but the Trib probably doesn't look at this from a "we have the money let's spend it now" perspective when they can defer payment for at least 2 years. A big corporation like the Trib. would invest that money to make it grow rather than make a bigger, up front payment.

 

An individual player would also invest that money to make it grow. Both sides of the negotiation are going to be looking at the present value of the guaranteed payments, regardless of the timing of the payments.

[Diffusion]

If your offense is that much incrementally better, the exact same effect happens to the other team. You get their starters out of the game that much sooner, getting to the soft underbelly of the opposing pitching staff, leading to even more runs. Which leads, of course, to even more victories.

 

Possibly.

 

The effect of being in the field more during the year may lead to more injuries, wearing down, etc., but my thinking is that this would be a small enough effect that it wouldn't be statistically significant. But that's a pure matter of opinion.

 

Well, last year the difference between the pitching staff that faced the least batters (Cards) and the pitching staff that faced the most (Rockies) was 431 plate appearances over the course of the entire year. On average a baseball game in 2004 was just under 39 plate appearances per team long, so 431 plate appearances is essentially 11 entire games. In other words, the Rockies essentially played 169 games last year in the same time that it took the Cardinals to play 158 while the major league average was 162.

 

Now obviously with the Rockies the problem was rubbish pitchers and half the year having a rubbish ballpark to pitch in, as opposed to defence (the Rockies were actually among the best teams last year defensively if you believe error totals, which I don't), and they're an extreme case. But the Arizona Diamondbacks (who led the majors in errors) and Cincinnati Reds both threw to well more than 300 more batters than the Cards' staff did, in effect playing 166 and 167 games last year.

 

So there's a definite trend that the less effective your pitching, for whatever reason, the more games you effectively play in the field, and the difference can be quite noticeable. 8, 9, 11 extra games than the Cardinals. What's that? 1500+ extra pitches? You've got to believe that that's really not doing the pitchers any favours whatsoever, and that that takes its toll both in terms of fatigue, injuries and general turnover of pitchers. And all of that of course only compounds things further, your pitching staff is depleted or tired, they get outs at an even lousier rate, they face more batters, they become more tired, and it's a vicious cycle.

 

Now a lot of the differences there isn't fielding, but rather ballpark and the quality of the pitching staff, and I have absolutely no idea how that breaks down, but I think it's pretty clear that there's an effect there and that some of it is attributable to fielding. As a rule, the friendlier the hitting environment, the more pitches pitchers have to throw. And having lousy defence makes the hitting environment friendlier for the other team.

 

Have there ever been any data-based studies that showed that denying runs is a more effective winning strategy than scoring them?

 

I'll get back to you on this if I find anything. Right now all I've got is Bill James saying that they're equally important and Rob Neyer saying "While it's certainly possible that winning baseball is somewhat more than 50 percent pitching and defense, it's also quite likely that the figure can't be much higher than 50 percent." Neyer's opinion is roughly in line with my own.