Bruce on the offseason

[CuseCubFan69]

If you hear Hendry say after a trade or signing: "He hit XXX with runners in scoring position" is your head going to explode? I just have this wierd feeling that it's coming soon to a park you love.

 

probably.

 

ugh, hendry might as well say that we need more dragons and elves on the roster.

 

Wrigley Field would be like Lord of the Rings?

[XZero771679666304]

a pitcher could also have an era of 6.00 and win 15 games but how likely is that? if wins & losses shouldnt be taken into consideration then clemens should win the cy young this year instead of carpenter or wills but he wont. i agree they dont tell the whole story but i would rather have a guy with a 4.00 era who wins 15 games year after year than a guy with a 2.50 era who only wins 10 every year.

 

I wouldn't. The guys with the 2.50 era is likely to pitch deeper into games, and keep you in more games than the other guy. Consequently, that saves your pen, and gives you a chance to win more games.

 

Exactly. IMO, the best the pitcher can do is keep his team in the game by holding down the opponent as best he can. Now if a guy has few wins and a low ERA, that is not his fault. Conversely, if a pitcher has a 4.00 ERA and many wins, then that is a direct benefit of a good offense.

 

Common sense tells us that a pitcher with a lower ERA is going to win more games than one with a higher ERA if they are on the same team. There is no mystical "ability to win", and pitchers with relatively high ERA's don't win games because they "know how to win". They win because of run support, pure and simple.

 

Given equal innings, low pitchers with good peripehrals are going to give you a better chance to win games.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Pitching, defense and timely hitting is what you'll hear our Mr. Hendry say will be the Cub goals for the off-season.

 

Isn't that how the White Sox and Astros got to the post-season?

 

Timely hitting? How does somebody go out and acquire timely hitting in the offseason? Houston and White Sox didn't make it to the playoffs off timely hitting, they made it on unbelievable pitching. They better not waste time, focus and money thinking they can magically solve the clutch dilemna. Just get production Jimbo, let the romanticists worry about the myths you have no control over.

 

Timely hitting is aquired when you buy each player a Rolex, it's just that simple.

 

If you hear Hendry say after a trade or signing: "He hit XXX with runners in scoring position" is your head going to explode? I just have this wierd feeling that it's coming soon to a park you love.

 

probably.

 

ugh, hendry might as well say that we need more dragons and elves on the roster.

:lmao:

We already have a gremlin.

Edited October 4, 2005 by vance_the_cubs_fan

[CuseCubFan69]

Is it possible that the difference between a 2.5 and a 4 ERA pitcher is pitching one too many innings? If you have a 6 inning guy and a good pen your more likely to have a better ERA than if the manager leaves you in because your the best choice to be out there.

[CubfaninCA]

I think he's gone no matter what. I see him going to a team to aquire an OF.

 

Hmmm. Maybe he has some off-the-field problems, which the team is keeping hush hush. *shrug*

 

If he's dealt for OF help, hopefully it's Floyd.

 

Floyd would be nice...do the Mets need a second baseman? What would they do with Matsui and his big contract?

 

Well, he'd be an upgrade over Matsui, who the Mets could put on their bench. The Mets are one of the few teams that can afford an $8 million guy on the bench. Also, Walker comes pretty cheap.

 

I'm still hoping the Cubs can get into the Manny talks and get Floyd, w/ Walker going to Boston.

[YearofDaCubs]

If you hear Hendry say after a trade or signing: "He hit XXX with runners in scoring position" is your head going to explode? I just have this wierd feeling that it's coming soon to a park you love.

 

probably.

 

ugh, hendry might as well say that we need more dragons and elves on the roster.

 

Wrigley Field would be like Lord of the Rings?

How far are we for that to come to fruition? It already is a damn circus.

[BigbadB]

Uh oh. Measuring a pitcher's talent based on wins/losses.

 

wins and era also. what other #'s indicate a pitcher's effectivness better?

 

A pitcher could pitch a whole year with an ERA of 0.00 and not win 14 games. If the OFFENSE doesn't score any runs in any of those games, the pitcher gets a no decision. In 2003, Kerry should have been a 20 game winner. The blown saves and the lack of run support in games he pitched that year cost him a lot of wins.

 

ERA is definitely a good measure. WHIP is a good measure. K/BB is a good measure. There are many others, but wins should never be taken into consideration.

 

Kerry Wood was 12-11 in 2002 with a 3.67 ERA

Matt Clement was 9-13 last year with a 3.68 ERA

Brandon Webb was 7-16 last year with a 3.59 ERA

 

Brandon Webb was 10-9 in 2003 with a 2.84 ERA.

 

Russ Ortiz was 21-7 in 2003 with a 3.81 ERA

Last year, Russ was 15-9 with a 4.31 ERA

 

I could go on.

 

a pitcher could also have an era of 6.00 and win 15 games but how likely is that? if wins & losses shouldnt be taken into consideration then clemens should win the cy young this year instead of carpenter or wills but he wont. i agree they dont tell the whole story but i would rather have a guy with a 4.00 era who wins 15 games year after year than a guy with a 2.50 era who only wins 10 every year.

 

Here is the list of games Roger Clemens played in and the amount of earned runs he gave up in each game:

 

1,0,0,0,3 in April

2,0,2,2,0,2 in May

4,1,0,1,1 in June

0,2,1,0,2 in July

1,0,0,5,2,0 in August

2,5,1,4 in September

1 in October

 

He finished the season with a 13-8 record.

10 starts with zero earned runs

19 starts with 1 earned run or less

27 starts with 2 earned runs or less.

32 total starts.

 

You would think that a guy who could go out there 27 times and leave the game giving up only 2 runs could win a few more games than less than half.

 

Chris Carpenter's earned run history for 2005:

 

1,8,3,0,3 in April

2,5,2,3,1,3 in May

0,3,0,1,0 in June

0,1,0,1,3 in July

1,2,2,3,3,1 in August

2,0,4,4,9,5 in September

 

He finished the season with a 21-5 record.

7 starts with zero earned runs.

14 starts with 1 earned run or less

19 starts with 2 runs or less

33 starts total.

 

Dontrelle Willis' earned run history for 2005:

 

0,0,3,2,0 in April

0,1,3,2,2 in May

3,4,1,0,0,5 in June

0,8,8,7,0 in July

1,0,1,0,2,1 in August

1,1,2,2,1,5

 

He finished the season with a 21-5 record.

10 starts with zero earned runs.

18 starts with 1 earned run or less

24 starts with 2 runs or less

33 starts total

 

Looking over the 3 guys, Clemens clearly was the better starter of the 3. He had more quality starts and never gave up more than 5 runs in any game. It's Houston's poor offensive run support that will cost Clemens another Cy Young trophy. Personally, if I had a vote, it would go to Clemens.

 

The stuff listed above isn't all that factors either. K/9, K/BB, WHIP, ERA, BAA should all be factored in as well.

 

But, there is no way you can truly factor in wins/losses when evaluating a pitcher. That said, I'd take Willis, Clemens or Carpenter in my rotation.

[sethuel1]

Pitching, defense and timely hitting is what you'll hear our Mr. Hendry say will be the Cub goals for the off-season.

 

Isn't that how the White Sox and Astros got to the post-season?

 

Timely hitting? How does somebody go out and acquire timely hitting in the offseason? Houston and White Sox didn't make it to the playoffs off timely hitting, they made it on unbelievable pitching. They better not waste time, focus and money thinking they can magically solve the clutch dilemna. Just get production Jimbo, let the romanticists worry about the myths you have no control over.

 

Timely hitting is aquired when you buy each player a Rolex, it's just that simple.

 

If you hear Hendry say after a trade or signing: "He hit XXX with runners in scoring position" is your head going to explode? I just have this wierd feeling that it's coming soon to a park you love.

 

It still wouldn't be nearly as bad as the line, "He hit the 4th most home runs of anyone with his number of strikeouts or more."

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Am I the only one that thought Baker had finally made a transition to accepting Murton as an everyday player (albeit too late and due to injury)? I really don't see Baker having a problem playing him full time in LF next year. With Baker so far, we know that he makes the rookie substantially outperform any veteran in order to get any playing time. Murton may be the first rookie, under Baker, that has met that challenge.

 

Be interested to see what Bruce's insights are on Baker/Murton and whether Baker was impressed or better yet thinks that Murton is worthy of an everyday spot next year.

 

He made it when he had no more Holla/Lawton options. I can't wait for Baker to leave and it can't be soon enough.

 

Exactly, the alternative was Hairston everyday, and those two platooned for a little bit before Murton's performance/Dusty's distaste for Hairston won out.

 

I forgot about Hairston! Just call me Dusty.

 

I will be thrilled if the Cubs sign 3 OF's better than Murton but I know that if Hendry picks up 3 vets and no matter what their skill level is that they will get the first shot to play.

 

I will be totally bewildered if Murton doesn't get first crack at LF next year. There's not much more he could have done in his 150 AB's. He showed power, average, patience, speed...

 

...mastery of the crap single...

[nilodnayr]

Pitching, defense and timely hitting is what you'll hear our Mr. Hendry say will be the Cub goals for the off-season.

 

Isn't that how the White Sox and Astros got to the post-season?

 

Timely hitting? How does somebody go out and acquire timely hitting in the offseason? Houston and White Sox didn't make it to the playoffs off timely hitting, they made it on unbelievable pitching. They better not waste time, focus and money thinking they can magically solve the clutch dilemna. Just get production Jimbo, let the romanticists worry about the myths you have no control over.

 

Timely hitting is aquired when you buy each player a Rolex, it's just that simple.

 

If you hear Hendry say after a trade or signing: "He hit XXX with runners in scoring position" is your head going to explode? I just have this wierd feeling that it's coming soon to a park you love.

 

It still wouldn't be nearly as bad as the line, "He hit the 4th most home runs of anyone with his number of strikeouts or more."

 

Hey, we havent declined his 7M option yet...

[tgk]

Just to Illustrate the point:

 

In 1998 this pitcher went 19-9 with a 4.85 era. He pitched 219 innings, allowed 244 hits, and 62 walks for a Whip of 1.397. Team's record as 90-72 (.572)

 

In 1999 the same pithcer went 6-12 with a 4.83 era. He pitched 136 innings, allowed 151 hits and 33 walks for a whip of 1.352. The team's record was 67-95 (.414)

 

Who is he? Kevin Tapani of your Chicago Cubs.

[goonys evil twin]

Hey, we havent declined his 7M option yet...

 

You've ruined my freaking morning.

[soapy]

Bruce (if you come back to this thread),

 

I keep reading that it's almost a foregone conclusion that Walker will not be a Cub next year. Do you know what the thinking is from Cubs' management? Why? Are they unhappy with his defense? His "mouth"? Or is it something else I'm not considering?

[Balsa]

Bruce (if you come back to this thread),

 

I keep reading that it's almost a foregone conclusion that Walker will not be a Cub next year. Do you know what the thinking is from Cubs' management? Why? Are they unhappy with his defense? His "mouth"? Or is it something else I'm not considering?

 

I think he's covering the White Sox right now, but I'd be interested in this answer as well. He's not the best defensively, but his offense is good enough to balance it and, and he's cheap next year.

[frostwyrm]

It still wouldn't be nearly as bad as the line, "He hit the 4th most home runs of anyone with his number of strikeouts or more."

 

People just dismiss Burnitz - 'He strikes out a lot. He can't do this, he can't do that.’ If you look at it objectively, he was sixth in the game in slugging percentage of people who struck out more than 120 times.

 

I actually had that in my sig for a while. It just struck me as hilariously stupid at the time, especially considering that Burnitz played at Coors.

 

Thread: 3.7.05 Quote of the Day

[goonys evil twin]

People just dismiss Burnitz - 'He strikes out a lot. He can't do this, he can't do that.’ If you look at it objectively, he was sixth in the game in slugging percentage of people who struck out more than 120 times.

 

I actually had that in my sig for a while. It just struck me as hilariously stupid at the time, especially considering that Burnitz played at Coors.

 

It's stuff like this that really makes me worry about the Cubs reported new interest in "numbers". When other teams were hiring Ivy League statisticians or Billy Beane disciples to help bring them up to date on the new ways of objective analysis, the Cubs hired Chuck Wasserstrom, a former PR or media relations guy if I'm not mistaken, to handle their number crunching and data analysis. They didn't go outside the team to hire an expert in the field, they just gave a current employee a different job. I don't know his credentials, and I'm not going to accuse him of anything, but when Hendry starts citing completely arbitrary BS stats like that one to justify making a deal, I can't help but wonder what the Cubs stat department is doing.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert in the field myself, but I read quite a bit from people who know a lot. And nothing the Cubs have done in 6 years (about the amount of time I've paid attention to so-called sabermetric thought), leads me to believe they take it seriously. It's frightening to me that an organization with such a strong history of failure would assume they know more about their field than anybody else, and that they are too good for a new way of thinking. But that appears to be the case.

[sethuel1]

It still wouldn't be nearly as bad as the line, "He hit the 4th most home runs of anyone with his number of strikeouts or more."

 

People just dismiss Burnitz - 'He strikes out a lot. He can't do this, he can't do that.’ If you look at it objectively, he was sixth in the game in slugging percentage of people who struck out more than 120 times.

 

I actually had that in my sig for a while. It just struck me as hilariously stupid at the time, especially considering that Burnitz played at Coors.

 

Thread: 3.7.05 Quote of the Day

 

yeah, that was it. Even worse than the version I'd remembered.

[frostwyrm]

People just dismiss Burnitz - 'He strikes out a lot. He can't do this, he can't do that.’ If you look at it objectively, he was sixth in the game in slugging percentage of people who struck out more than 120 times.

 

I actually had that in my sig for a while. It just struck me as hilariously stupid at the time, especially considering that Burnitz played at Coors.

 

It's stuff like this that really makes me worry about the Cubs reported new interest in "numbers". When other teams were hiring Ivy League statisticians or Billy Beane disciples to help bring them up to date on the new ways of objective analysis, the Cubs hired Chuck Wasserstrom, a former PR or media relations guy if I'm not mistaken, to handle their number crunching and data analysis. They didn't go outside the team to hire an expert in the field, they just gave a current employee a different job. I don't know his credentials, and I'm not going to accuse him of anything, but when Hendry starts citing completely arbitrary BS stats like that one to justify making a deal, I can't help but wonder what the Cubs stat department is doing.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert in the field myself, but I read quite a bit from people who know a lot. And nothing the Cubs have done in 6 years (about the amount of time I've paid attention to so-called sabermetric thought), leads me to believe they take it seriously. It's frightening to me that an organization with such a strong history of failure would assume they know more about their field than anybody else, and that they are too good for a new way of thinking. But that appears to be the case.

 

The whole quote:

 

"People just dismiss Burnitz - 'He strikes out a lot. He can't do this, he can't do that.’ If you look at it objectively, he was sixth in the game in slugging percentage of people who struck out more than 120 times. He hit .307 with men on base. He hits left-handers well. He hit .287 with men in scoring position. To me, he's not striking out at the wrong times. The analysis is being done."

--Cubs GM Jim Hendry

 

Besides the mega-goofy SLG remark, we have the good ole "clutch" argument. Funny thing is, none of those numbers are even impressive, and for a Rocky, they're actually kinda lame. There are things I like about Hendry, but his methods of statistical analysis aren't among them.

[dalgreen]

Is it possible that the difference between a 2.5 and a 4 ERA pitcher is pitching one too many innings? If you have a 6 inning guy and a good pen your more likely to have a better ERA than if the manager leaves you in because your the best choice to be out there.

 

Or it could be some stupid official scorer calling an obvious error a hit and thus charging 5 earned runs to the starter instead of 0.

[CuseCubFan69]

Is it possible that the difference between a 2.5 and a 4 ERA pitcher is pitching one too many innings? If you have a 6 inning guy and a good pen your more likely to have a better ERA than if the manager leaves you in because your the best choice to be out there.

 

Or it could be some stupid official scorer calling an obvious error a hit and thus charging 5 earned runs to the starter instead of 0.

 

That could happen quite easily with some hometown scoring. A lot of people know the difference between hitting 300 and 250 is X amount of hits a month and I'm pretty sure the same can be said about an ERA of 4 and 3 earned run wise.

[David]

Just to Illustrate the point:

 

In 1998 this pitcher went 19-9 with a 4.85 era. He pitched 219 innings, allowed 244 hits, and 62 walks for a Whip of 1.397. Team's record as 90-72 (.572)

 

In 1999 the same pithcer went 6-12 with a 4.83 era. He pitched 136 innings, allowed 151 hits and 33 walks for a whip of 1.352. The team's record was 67-95 (.414)

 

Who is he? Kevin Tapani of your Chicago Cubs.

 

I was going to say Tapani...but the 98 Cubs were 90-73.. :wink:

 

Kinda threw me off...

[tgk]

Just to Illustrate the point:

 

In 1998 this pitcher went 19-9 with a 4.85 era. He pitched 219 innings, allowed 244 hits, and 62 walks for a Whip of 1.397. Team's record as 90-72 (.572)

 

In 1999 the same pithcer went 6-12 with a 4.83 era. He pitched 136 innings, allowed 151 hits and 33 walks for a whip of 1.352. The team's record was 67-95 (.414)

 

Who is he? Kevin Tapani of your Chicago Cubs.

 

I was going to say Tapani...but the 98 Cubs were 90-73.. :wink:

 

Kinda threw me off...

 

DOH! #-o

[iowacub]

I think that the Cubs will trade Walker because quite simply his value is so high...

[iowacub]

and trade for a run producer like Soriano. The Cubs had a lot of interest at the deadline and Texas will trade him in the offseason. My Line-up...

 

1) furcal ss

2) lofton cf

3) lee 1b

4) ramirez 3b

5) giles rf

6) soriano 2b

7) murton lf

8) barrett c

[Exile on Waveland]

People just dismiss Burnitz - 'He strikes out a lot. He can't do this, he can't do that.’ If you look at it objectively, he was sixth in the game in slugging percentage of people who struck out more than 120 times.

 

I actually had that in my sig for a while. It just struck me as hilariously stupid at the time, especially considering that Burnitz played at Coors.

 

It's stuff like this that really makes me worry about the Cubs reported new interest in "numbers". When other teams were hiring Ivy League statisticians or Billy Beane disciples to help bring them up to date on the new ways of objective analysis, the Cubs hired Chuck Wasserstrom, a former PR or media relations guy if I'm not mistaken, to handle their number crunching and data analysis. They didn't go outside the team to hire an expert in the field, they just gave a current employee a different job. I don't know his credentials, and I'm not going to accuse him of anything, but when Hendry starts citing completely arbitrary BS stats like that one to justify making a deal, I can't help but wonder what the Cubs stat department is doing.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert in the field myself, but I read quite a bit from people who know a lot. And nothing the Cubs have done in 6 years (about the amount of time I've paid attention to so-called sabermetric thought), leads me to believe they take it seriously. It's frightening to me that an organization with such a strong history of failure would assume they know more about their field than anybody else, and that they are too good for a new way of thinking. But that appears to be the case.

 

It would be one thing if Hendry mentioned "clutch stats" like batting average with runners in scoring position. Those numbers fluctuate, but at least they mean something. That would just make me nervous about the team's philosophy.

 

However, Hendry mentions some weird "slugging percentage of people that strike out a lot" stat. That not only makes me nervous about the team's philosophy, but also the competence of its decision makers. I mean, seriously, what the heck does that stat even mean? It's ridiculously arbitrary. I struggle to believe someone actually said that, much less that someone was the GM of a major MLB franchise.