Howry signs with Cubs (yes, it's official)

[Diffusion]

Keeper, what have the studies shown about OPSBIP versus BABIP? We know that BABIP is tightly bunched given a decent sample size. But do groundball pitchers tend to allow more singles and fewer doubles than flyball pitchers? Just wondering.

Good question, but I'm not sure I can give you an answer. Historically, official stats haven't keep track of a pitcher's TB allowed, so computing a pitcher's SLG is a bit difficult for the masses of data you'd need to study the question properly.

 

Stealing the raw-(ish) numbers from here, and he doesn't actually give a source, I think it's pretty safe to say that flyball pitchers allow significantly higher slugging percentages than groundball pitchers...

 

2004

--Groundballs accounted for 42% of all batted balls, but 45% of singles, 14% of doubles, 42% of triples and 0% of home runs (approximately 33% of all hits, 11% of all extra-base hits and 23% of all total bases)

--Flyballs accounted for 33% of all batted balls, but 8% of singles, 35% of doubles, 30% of triples and 86% of home runs (approximately 23% of all hits, 53% of all extra-base hits and 39% of all total bases)

--Line drives accounted for 18% of all batted balls, but 46% of singles, 50% of doubles, 28% of triples and 14% of home runs (approximately 43% of all hits, 36% of all extra-base hits and 37% of all total bases)

--Popups accounted for 8% of all batted balls, but 1% of singles, 0% of doubles, triples and home runs (0% of all hits, 0% of all extra-base hits and 0% of all total bases)

 

The key number there in terms of slugging percentage is that groundballs account for 42% of all batted balls, but 23% of all total bases; whereas flyballs account for 33% of all batted balls, but 39% of all total bases. In terms of total bases per batted ball of that type, flyballs trump groundballs easily.

 

Anyway, I've emailed Dave Studeman (Studes) to see if I can get some better info out of Baseball Info Solutions, but it looks almost certain that logic holds its own here.

Edited November 23, 2005 by Diffusion

[SouthSideRyan]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

People aren't upset at having Howry. People are upset at having Howry, Eyre, Neifi, and Rusch instead of Giles, Cedeno, Novoa, and Hill.

[Bruno7481]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

People aren't upset at having Howry. People are upset at having Howry, Eyre, Neifi, and Rusch instead of Giles, Cedeno, Novoa, and Hill.

 

I'd love to have Giles as well, but bringing back a bulpen with Novoa and Hill would be asking for the same problems they had last year.

[Neuby]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

People aren't upset at having Howry. People are upset at having Howry, Eyre, Neifi, and Rusch instead of Giles, Cedeno, Novoa, and Hill.

 

only problem is no one knows yet that this is the case yet. Giles name has been mentioned with the Cubs this offseason. He hasn't signed anywhere yet. At this point I would rather have Abreau, Manny, Dunn just to name a few that are still out there than Giles and his shoulder. As far as I know Nova is still slotted in the pen next year and Cedeno will be given a starting job at second or short. So in essence you upset that Rich Hill might be traded or start the season off in the starting rotation in the minors?

[Mike Aller]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

You seem to think Howry has turned a corner in his career at age 32. No one here disputes that Howry had a career year, but do you actually believe that one year represents what he is likely to do in the future?

Yes, I do. 2005 was a career year, no doubt, but look at 2004. 44IP with 2.74 ERA. Far above average. Then the next year he further improves. If you can get anywhere in the ball park of his 2004 numbers, you'll have a very successful relief pitcher. He pitched 79 games at a 31/32 year old, so I hardly think he is wearing down yet.

 

As far as the contract situation: Howry simply was a benifactor from a market that desired relief pitching. It would have been the same no matter who you went after. You could have gotten a pitcher for lesser money, but it would have been a lesser pitcher.

 

It just seems no matter what happens, something negative is always found in it. I'm not just saying this situation, because there are some real reasons for complaining, but this isn't the only example.

[Tim]

People are acting as if having Novoa in the pen would doom the Cubs in 2006. He'd be the seventh option out of the pen. That's very akin to saying that having Macias on the bench dooms the Cubs.

[WrigleyField 22]

I stopped reading this thing around page 13. Was there a report or something leading everyone to belief that we are definately getting Howry? Just reading, it sure seems like everyone is sure its happening.

[Drew Doughty]

It's contingent on a physical.

[JeffH]

It's been reported today as being done, pending a physical. $12/3.

[goonys evil twin]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

You seem to think Howry has turned a corner in his career at age 32. No one here disputes that Howry had a career year, but do you actually believe that one year represents what he is likely to do in the future?

Yes, I do. 2005 was a career year, no doubt, but look at 2004. 44IP with 2.74 ERA. Far above average. Then the next year he further improves. If you can get anywhere in the ball park of his 2004 numbers, you'll have a very successful relief pitcher. He pitched 79 games at a 31/32 year old, so I hardly think he is wearing down yet.

 

As far as the contract situation: Howry simply was a benifactor from a market that desired relief pitching. It would have been the same no matter who you went after. You could have gotten a pitcher for lesser money, but it would have been a lesser pitcher.

 

It just seems no matter what happens, something negative is always found in it. I'm not just saying this situation, because there are some real reasons for complaining, but this isn't the only example.

 

It's not like the Cubs just made a move and people decided to think of something negative.

 

Relievers have short-shelf lives. Outside the best of the best (Wagner, Rivera, Hoffman etc), your typical reliever's career is extremely up and down. They don't get 3 years until after they've had some success, but then after they've had some success, their peak is probably already past. The Cubs are paying guys for what they did before as opposed to what they are likely to do for them in the future.

 

You may be annoyed by all the perceived negativity, but I for one am quite annoyed at all the pleas for people to just be happy with whatever they do. It's been explained over and over why there are drawbacks, and why those drawbacks can't be ignored. This is a very risky move without a ton of upside. It's not like they are overpaying potential superstars. And while it's fine to pay a guy like Howry what they are supposedly paying him, it's not fine to just do that with several players, as the Cubs have done. If $5-6m of your payroll goes into overpaying role players, then that is $5-6m you can't spend on a player who can be an actual difference maker. And we Cubs fans are all too familar with the Cubs tendancy to fall a few million short of signing or otherwise acquiring difference makers.

[goonys evil twin]

People are acting as if having Novoa in the pen would doom the Cubs in 2006. He'd be the seventh option out of the pen. That's very akin to saying that having Macias on the bench dooms the Cubs.

 

Only if Macias was young, talented and earning the minimum (and was not Dusty's favorite weapon).

[Cubzfan64]

I for one think it's fun anticipating that Hendry and the Cubs have very obviously loaded up on an area where they were lacking last season and at least in my mind we're poised to make SOME kind of trade to fill the holes we have left to try to fill.

 

Until I see the whole puzzle put together in front of me, I'm going to stand back and try to see what the different pieces look like but not guess at the final outcome or complain about pieces not fitting or looking right.

 

Considering how depressing the regular seasons have been lately, this offseason is actually more enjoyable since I get to have that exhilerating feeling of anticipation for a few more months before reality has to set in.

 

Here's hoping reality is actually better in 2006 than the anticipation for a change!

[RynoRules]

People are acting as if having Novoa in the pen would doom the Cubs in 2006. He'd be the seventh option out of the pen. That's very akin to saying that having Macias on the bench dooms the Cubs.

 

Many would agree with that macias statement. I am not one, but many would...

[Mike Aller]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

You seem to think Howry has turned a corner in his career at age 32. No one here disputes that Howry had a career year, but do you actually believe that one year represents what he is likely to do in the future?

Yes, I do. 2005 was a career year, no doubt, but look at 2004. 44IP with 2.74 ERA. Far above average. Then the next year he further improves. If you can get anywhere in the ball park of his 2004 numbers, you'll have a very successful relief pitcher. He pitched 79 games at a 31/32 year old, so I hardly think he is wearing down yet.

 

As far as the contract situation: Howry simply was a benifactor from a market that desired relief pitching. It would have been the same no matter who you went after. You could have gotten a pitcher for lesser money, but it would have been a lesser pitcher.

 

It just seems no matter what happens, something negative is always found in it. I'm not just saying this situation, because there are some real reasons for complaining, but this isn't the only example.

 

It's not like the Cubs just made a move and people decided to think of something negative.

 

Relievers have short-shelf lives. Outside the best of the best (Wagner, Rivera, Hoffman etc), your typical reliever's career is extremely up and down. They don't get 3 years until after they've had some success, but then after they've had some success, their peak is probably already past. The Cubs are paying guys for what they did before as opposed to what they are likely to do for them in the future.

 

You may be annoyed by all the perceived negativity, but I for one am quite annoyed at all the pleas for people to just be happy with whatever they do. It's been explained over and over why there are drawbacks, and why those drawbacks can't be ignored. This is a very risky move without a ton of upside. It's not like they are overpaying potential superstars. And while it's fine to pay a guy like Howry what they are supposedly paying him, it's not fine to just do that with several players, as the Cubs have done. If $5-6m of your payroll goes into overpaying role players, then that is $5-6m you can't spend on a player who can be an actual difference maker. And we Cubs fans are all too familar with the Cubs tendancy to fall a few million short of signing or otherwise acquiring difference makers.

Did I say that you should be happy about anything? Remember, you are complaining about a free-agent signing, not a trade. Huge difference.

[TrueBlueCubFan]

You guys complain too much. :(

 

The Indians had one of the top 3 bullpens in the majors (probably #1) last year, and Howry was a huge part of it. He made 79 appearances, which set a club record for the tribe. I'm upset that he's gone, and I come here and find that you are upset because you have him.

 

Or, well, you 'overpaid'. You have yourself a very good relief pitcher that can pitch you 60-70 games. I realize you have to focus more on offense, but Jesus, be positive for once.

 

You seem to think Howry has turned a corner in his career at age 32. No one here disputes that Howry had a career year, but do you actually believe that one year represents what he is likely to do in the future?

Yes, I do. 2005 was a career year, no doubt, but look at 2004. 44IP with 2.74 ERA. Far above average. Then the next year he further improves. If you can get anywhere in the ball park of his 2004 numbers, you'll have a very successful relief pitcher. He pitched 79 games at a 31/32 year old, so I hardly think he is wearing down yet.

 

As far as the contract situation: Howry simply was a benifactor from a market that desired relief pitching. It would have been the same no matter who you went after. You could have gotten a pitcher for lesser money, but it would have been a lesser pitcher.

 

It just seems no matter what happens, something negative is always found in it. I'm not just saying this situation, because there are some real reasons for complaining, but this isn't the only example.

 

It's not like the Cubs just made a move and people decided to think of something negative.

 

Relievers have short-shelf lives. Outside the best of the best (Wagner, Rivera, Hoffman etc), your typical reliever's career is extremely up and down. They don't get 3 years until after they've had some success, but then after they've had some success, their peak is probably already past. The Cubs are paying guys for what they did before as opposed to what they are likely to do for them in the future.

 

You may be annoyed by all the perceived negativity, but I for one am quite annoyed at all the pleas for people to just be happy with whatever they do. It's been explained over and over why there are drawbacks, and why those drawbacks can't be ignored. This is a very risky move without a ton of upside. It's not like they are overpaying potential superstars. And while it's fine to pay a guy like Howry what they are supposedly paying him, it's not fine to just do that with several players, as the Cubs have done. If $5-6m of your payroll goes into overpaying role players, then that is $5-6m you can't spend on a player who can be an actual difference maker. And we Cubs fans are all too familar with the Cubs tendancy to fall a few million short of signing or otherwise acquiring difference makers.

Did I say that you should be happy about anything? Remember, you are complaining about a free-agent signing, not a trade. Huge difference.

& some just complain no matter what the Cubs do.

[XZero771679666304]

The Trib is reporting the signing:

 

Link

[XZero771679666304]

Bob Howry - R - Cubs

 

 

Cubs agreed to terms with RHP Bobby Howry, who had been with the Indians, on a three-year, $12 million contract.

It's quite a bit of money, Howry could be a better reliever than Ryan Dempster over the next three years, assuming his arm woes are in the past. Still, Dempster is the closer. Howry and Scott Eyre will share setup duties in a pen that will also include Scott Williamson, Michael Wuertz and Will Ohman. If Kerry Wood is healthy at the start of the season, one more spot will go to either Glendon Rusch or Jerome Williams. So, it's not looking good for Roberto Novoa, Jermaine Van Buren, Todd Wellemeyer, Sergio Mitre, Rich Hill or any of the Cubs' other useful young arms. Nov. 23 - 7:57 pm et

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Once Demp became a closer in 05 was the Cubs bullpen really that bad? Anyone have the numbers? Thanks!

[Ding Dong Johnson]

How is this thread still going??? :shock:

[XZero771679666304]

Once Demp became a closer in 05 was the Cubs bullpen really that bad? Anyone have the numbers? Thanks!

 

It was really bad. I think the rest of the pen had like 24 or 25 blown saves.

[JeffH]

Cubs bullpen:

 

Pre-ASG:

 

.252/.328/.419

 

Post-ASG:

 

.247/.321/.392

 

Not a huge difference.

[B]

People are acting as if having Novoa in the pen would doom the Cubs in 2006. He'd be the seventh option out of the pen. That's very akin to saying that having Macias on the bench dooms the Cubs.

 

Is that hard to believe? It seems like Novoa lost every single game he pitched in. Do you really think he'd be the 7th option with Dusty managing the pen. Same goes for Macias, you saw how Dusty used him last year. He was the 1st guy off the bench nearly every game.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Once Demp became a closer in 05 was the Cubs bullpen really that bad? Anyone have the numbers? Thanks!

 

Dempster made his first appearance from the pen on Wed 11 May.

 

dates          Bullpen ERA
04 Apr - 10 May      4.243
11 May - 02 Oct      4.258

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Once Demp became a closer in 05 was the Cubs bullpen really that bad? Anyone have the numbers? Thanks!

 

Dempster made his first appearance from the pen on Wed 11 May.

 

dates          Bullpen ERA
04 Apr - 10 May      4.243
11 May - 02 Oct      4.258

 

Interesting, that's worse then I thought. Thanks!

[TarzanJoeWallis]

ESPN.com is now reporting it:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2235175