Diffusion

Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?? pitcher R/G Mitre 5.43 Zambrano 4.80 Wood 4.70 Maddux 4.66 Prior 4.60 Williams 4.07 Leicester 4.00 Koronka 3.67 Rusch 3.59 Dempster 3.00 Hill 3.00 Never let a misuse of statistics get in the way either... Z's made 30 starts. Here are the number of runs that the Cubs have scored in the games that he's started... 16, 4, 5, 3, 9, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 7, 6, 4, 2, 4, 9, 8, 1, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 2, 14, 9, 5, 4 Let's line those up in order... 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, 14, 16 Interesting that the Cubs have never been shut out when Zambrano's started. But anyway, talk about 30 runs in 2 games skewing the numbers (and, remember, Z didn't get a win in the 16 run game against Arizona because he was ejected after 4.2 innings!). In 20 of Zambrano's starts the offence has scored 4 runs or fewer. That means to to get a win in any of those starts, Z would have had to combine with a pretty lousy bullpen and allow 0-3 runs, earned or otherwise (and remember we've played some pretty lousy defence too this year), over the entire game to get a win, and that's assuming that the Cubs score all their runs while Zambrano's the pitcher of record. Not the easiest of assignments, but Z has generally been up to the task, making 22 quality starts out of 30. And, since June 23rd, 13 quality starts out of 15, with one of the non-quality starts seeing him start the 8th having allowed just 2 runs (the other one was the ESPN Sunday Night game against the Mets when he left after 3 IP). More than the wins, that Z has only "lost" 5 games is a credit to him. In the games that he took the loss, the Cubs scored 1, 3, 2, 4 and 1. I don't see how you can jump on Aramis Ramirez for what he said just because you've got a misleading statistic to hand. Nothing in Maddux's 32 starts suggests that the run support numbers are skewed, eh? 4,6,4,3,3,5,7,4,1,1,5,11,14,5,5,6,6,1,9,0,6,2,6,0,11,4,7,1,7,2,2,1 Or in ordinal order..... 0,0,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,6,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,9,11,11,14 Note that there are 16 out of 32 starts where the CUBS scored 4 or fewer runs compared to 20 for Zambrano. Maddux's median is 5 compared to Zambrano's 4 pitcher R/G St Dev Mitre 5.43 4.59 Zambrano 4.80 3.58 Wood 4.70 2.93 Maddux 4.66 3.31 Prior 4.60 2.58 Williams 4.07 2.76 Leicester 4.00 ---- Koronka 3.67 3.77 Rusch 3.59 1.94 Dempster 3.00 2.71 Hill 3.00 1.23 overall 4.40 3.12 There is absolutely nothing here to suggest that Zambrano, given Maddux's run support, would have 9 more wins at this point in the season. That was the original assertion, and I jumped on it because it was wrong. Misuse of a statistic ?? What arrogance !! I didn't look at Maddux. Mostly because I didn't read the original thing by Aramis Ramirez properly. For that, I apologise, if that's necessary. But, using the statistics that you provided there for Maddux, for which I thank you... The Cubs have scored 5 runs or more for Maddux in 16 out of 32 starts (50%), while they've done the same for Zambrano in just 10 out of 30 starts (33%). There's run support for Maddux that Zambrano hasn't got. Does that give Z enough wins more to give him 20-odd (which is what Aramis actually said if we want to be pedantic about it, and that means 7+ as opposed to 9)? Probably not, but I didn't read Aramis's statement as being entirely literal, but rather a slightly exaggerated throwaway line.

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. He said that pitching and fielding was more important than hitting. PITCHING AND FIELDING. Not just pitching by itself. And not just fielding by itself, as you've ridiculously tried to suggest that he's saying. Both of them together. No one here is saying that Neifi Perez/Ozzie Smith are better than Manny Ramirez/Babe Ruth. Personally I think the game is 45% hitting, 40% pitching and 15% fielding. Something like that. I don't have any numbers to bear that out, but that's my suspicion. But that doesn't mean that you can say that for any hitter hitting is 3 times more important than fielding. It depends on the player's position. I think those percentages vary based upon who is on the mound. When you've got Kerry Wood out on the mound and he's on top of his game (or a younger Unit, etc.), fielding is less important because there simply aren't as many balls in play. When you've got someone like Suppan on the mound that "pitches to contact", fielding may be equal in importance to pitching. Blanket statements are always hard. Of course, but by "the game", I'm talking about the game as a whole, as in looking at all of major league baseball over a significant period, as opposed to the game relative specifically to the Cubs as they're currently constructed with a high strikeout staff. It's very much a blanket statement, but I don't think the variance from team to team is so enormous that it makes the blanket statement not worth saying. Sarcastic, I think you're clear with what I was saying, and I'm clear with what you were saying, so all's cool as far as I'm concerned. 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. 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. 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. So it's not as simple as saying lots of strikeouts = fielding less important, because in the Cubs' case the strikeouts have a negative byproduct in terms of the walks.

The Mike Cameron idea is my favourite one. Career line of .249/.340/.442, and playing the majority of his career in Safeco and Shea hurts that line. I think he's a guy that could put up a .260/.350/.475 line with the Cubs, that's a lot of strikeouts but 25 home runs and 70 walks. Furthermore, he's a good baserunner (which is useful if you bat him down the order where he belongs) and he plays Gold Glove defence. Camerson's slated to earn $6m in 2006, which is very fair relative to his performance, and there's a $7m club option vs $0.5m buyout for 2007. So if Pie is ready for Opening Day 2007, then you can buy him out. If Pie's not ready, you've got an option, though I'm not sure whether I'd be willing to gamble on Cameron, who's getting older, two years in a row. It depends what else is out there. With there nothing out there this year, that's why Cameron's so appealing. Why might the Mets trade him? Well, he's had more than his fair share of injuries, he's potentially a free agent after next year and they might want to get a return for him, they probably underrated him because the Mets are somewhat stupid, and they might want to open up a spot in RF for Victor Diaz next year and Lastings Milledge long-term. I bet they'd accept pitching for Cameron, because they're pretty dire in that department right now. And we have a lot of pitching to deal. Handy. Rich Hill for Mike Cameron, see if they bite. Murton (LF), *Walker (2B), Lee (1B), Rammy (3B), *Giles (RF), Nomar (SS), Cameron (CF), Barrett ©, Pitcher.

Next year the Cubs are quite possibly looking at a $100m payroll. I don't see why it's not possible for the Cubs to field a strong team at every position, especially given that most of that $100m is pretty flexible. Also... Yankees LF -- Tony Womack (.274 OBP) :lol: BP's fielding numbers are useless though. Jerry Hairston, 99 Rate2 in CF in 2005 Corey Patterson, 100 Rate2 in CF in 2005. They're trying to say that the difference defensively between Corey Patterson and Jerry Hairston in CF is one run per 100 games. Or one win per 1000 games. Yuh. Whatever. What a load of rubbish.

British? Yeh, hi! Observant of you. Brinoch, I'm probably not ready to give on Corey yet myself. His defence alone has some value, and while his bat is a huge problem right now, maybe six months off will help him a bit. I think half of it is in the mind right now. He's a man convinced of his swing and miss fate before the pitcher's even come set. now you're just showing off with the british stuff. your next post will probably include a link to an mp3 of a recording of you saying the word "aluminum." You need to spell the word properly first. :lol: You're not wrong, TXCubsfan. It's "al-lah-min-yum". Jeez. :P

Is this you just living up to your name? Or do you really mean that? While I'm not willing to do as far as to say that a player's ability to field is as important as a player's ability to hit, or even more important than a player's ability to hit, what I will say is that fielding definately matters and has at least some importance. So hardly "fielding schmielding" at all. 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. Anyway, the Cubs have a potentially great rotation with Zambrano, homerless Prior and healthy Wood, plus okay Maddux and Mr Who Knows. They need to do their best to make the most of that strength, and that means putting as good a defence behind those pitchers as possible without foresaking the required offence. 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. Pitching and fielding's more than half the game. I'd say at least 60-70%. Wow. Look, I never said fielding was irrelevant, it just isn't as important as a player's ability to hit. There's no need to write a book to tell me that fielding has some level of significance. All I meant was, I'd rather take Nomar at SS than Furcal, mainly because Furcal will brobably be much more expensive, and he isn't a really great hitter. For a shortstop, he's good, but if Nomar is healthy (I know it's a risk) he could be much better. More importantly the money saved might allow the team to go after another need. That's all I was saying. "Fielding schmielding" sounded to me very much as if you were saying that it was irrelevant.

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. He said that pitching and fielding was more important than hitting. PITCHING AND FIELDING. Not just pitching by itself. And not just fielding by itself, as you've ridiculously tried to suggest that he's saying. Both of them together. No one here is saying that Neifi Perez/Ozzie Smith are better than Manny Ramirez/Babe Ruth. Personally I think the game is 45% hitting, 40% pitching and 15% fielding. Something like that. I don't have any numbers to bear that out, but that's my suspicion. But that doesn't mean that you can say that for any hitter hitting is 3 times more important than fielding. It depends on the player's position.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?? pitcher R/G Mitre 5.43 Zambrano 4.80 Wood 4.70 Maddux 4.66 Prior 4.60 Williams 4.07 Leicester 4.00 Koronka 3.67 Rusch 3.59 Dempster 3.00 Hill 3.00 Never let a misuse of statistics get in the way either... Z's made 30 starts. Here are the number of runs that the Cubs have scored in the games that he's started... 16, 4, 5, 3, 9, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 7, 6, 4, 2, 4, 9, 8, 1, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 2, 14, 9, 5, 4 Let's line those up in order... 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, 14, 16 Interesting that the Cubs have never been shut out when Zambrano's started. But anyway, talk about 30 runs in 2 games skewing the numbers (and, remember, Z didn't get a win in the 16 run game against Arizona because he was ejected after 4.2 innings!). In 20 of Zambrano's starts the offence has scored 4 runs or fewer. That means to to get a win in any of those starts, Z would have had to combine with a pretty lousy bullpen and allow 0-3 runs, earned or otherwise (and remember we've played some pretty lousy defence too this year), over the entire game to get a win, and that's assuming that the Cubs score all their runs while Zambrano's the pitcher of record. Not the easiest of assignments, but Z has generally been up to the task, making 22 quality starts out of 30. And, since June 23rd, 13 quality starts out of 15, with one of the non-quality starts seeing him start the 8th having allowed just 2 runs (the other one was the ESPN Sunday Night game against the Mets when he left after 3 IP). More than the wins, that Z has only "lost" 5 games is a credit to him. In the games that he took the loss, the Cubs scored 1, 3, 2, 4 and 1. I don't see how you can jump on Aramis Ramirez for what he said just because you've got a misleading statistic to hand.

British? Yeh, hi! Observant of you. Brinoch, I'm probably not ready to give on Corey yet myself. His defence alone has some value, and while his bat is a huge problem right now, maybe six months off will help him a bit. I think half of it is in the mind right now. He's a man convinced of his swing and miss fate before the pitcher's even come set.

Except Maddux had a great changeup, cutter, slider, two fastballs, the lot. The key for Maddux was not just that he located all his stuff superbly, but that every pitch was literally a different speed, and it all moved. Control, movement, speed, all constantly varied.

so what you've seen w/ your eyes over his 25 major league innings is more valuable than all the numbers he amassed in the minors? sorry, but i don't trust your eyes that much. So what, did your eyes see him throw either a changeup or a cutter? Z got by just fine with two pitches for quite a while. Was one of them an at best league average fastball? No, but Hill's curve is also better than Z's slider was at that point. You're still talking one at best average pitch and one great pitch for Hill. Shawn Estes has a great curveball. Look how far that got him. You need at the absolute minimum one other pitch that's way above average if you're only going to throw two pitches, and if you can make sure that the two are completely unpickable out of the hand too that helps. The absolute vast majority of starters need at least three pitches though. The difference between excellence and awfulness for a lot of pitchers is simply how much of a feel they have for a third pitch on any given night. So how is Hill going to get by? He's got one pitch and his average fastball. He's got absolutely nothing that he's shown the confidence to throw in the major leagues to keep hitters off-balance, to stop them sitting on pitchers, to keep them honest. You fail to do that and you get pounded. It's not rocket science. One great well located breaking ball can wrack up a ton of strikeouts in the minors, and that can be good enough. Not so in the majors.

What on earth is the issue with Soto? The guy would be sitting at home not playing baseball right now if he wasn't on the roster. As it is the Cubs have called him up to act as a backup catcher in case there's an emergency involving Barrett or Blanco. He's just there for insurance. So Soto's sitting around the clubhouse getting used to the big leagues and how everything works around here, and he's getting paid for it. Better than sitting around at home and not getting paid for it, I suggest. Would it be nice for him to get the odd at-bat? Quite possibly. But it's absolutely unbelievable that some people are trying to have a go at Dusty because he's not playing the third catcher that's only there because the minor league season is over and the Cubs don't want to find themselves in a situation where Barrett or Blanco gets injured and they've only got one catcher, with all the minor league catchers sitting at home.

so what you've seen w/ your eyes over his 25 major league innings is more valuable than all the numbers he amassed in the minors? sorry, but i don't trust your eyes that much. So what, did your eyes see him throw either a changeup or a cutter? Z got by just fine with two pitches for quite a while. Was one of them an at best league average fastball?

so what you've seen w/ your eyes over his 25 major league innings is more valuable than all the numbers he amassed in the minors? sorry, but i don't trust your eyes that much. So what, did your eyes see him throw either a changeup or a cutter?

Thanks for the catch, I mistakenly put in his career OBP. Whoops! Sorry about the nitpicking. It's just the .329 OBP in the middle of the lineup was making me angry. People with OBPs that low MUST BAT FIRST! Jeez, you people never learn! :wink: Anyway, I really like that lineup, brinoch, with the exception of Hairston in CF. He's so bad defensively he haemorraghes away a lot of what little offensive value there is tied up in his OBP. For a utility guy, he's great; for a second baseman he's probably about average all told; but he's simply not good enough as an outfielder. I don't really have an alternative solution though. The only other thing is that I would really like to see Matt Murton in the lineup. I hugely doubt that Nomar in CF has any legs to it, but Murton (LF), Walker, Lee, Ramirez, Giles, Nomar (CF), Barrett, Cedeno, pitcher, forget about defence, that's just :twisted: .

Doesn't that right there cause you to take pause and perhaps maybe not pass judgement just yet? 80 PA. That's nothing. Talk of Hill as strictly a LOOGY makes no sense to me right now. No, because it tallies entirely with what he threw, fastball, curveball, no third pitch. I know there are some here that think entirely in terms of numbers, so why don't you make a nice long list for me of effective major league starters with just two pitches. Then multiply the number of pitchers on that list by Adam Dunn's VORP and divide by the square root of Derrek Lee's BABIP in the first half of 2005 and tell me what you get. Numbers are great, and I love using them too, but they're the end result of processes. If the processes are bad, and you can often see that with your eyes, then the numbers will be too. What about another list of pitchers who took time to develop a third pitch. Zito is curveball, mediocre fastball, changeup and he's won Cy Youngs. Why is it impossible to think Hill could develop a decent changeup, thus making him a credible 4th/5th starter. Because Hill's already 25 years old, and he’ll be 26 by next Spring Training. Time simply isn't on Hill's side. He’s gone through high school and college, he’s spent ages in A-ball, plus this year too. Chances are that if was going to ever develop a third pitch that he’s comfortable throwing in the major leagues, he’d have done it by now. It doesn’t need to be a great pitch, just something that he can throw to any hitter in any count, something to keep them off balance and better setup both his other pitches. In the minors he reportedly threw both a cutter and a changeup. What does their disappearance at the major level suggest to you? Because it suggests to me they’re not good enough, and aren’t even close to being so either.

Aramis Ramirez has a .358 OBP in 2005, btw.

Doesn't that right there cause you to take pause and perhaps maybe not pass judgement just yet? 80 PA. That's nothing. Talk of Hill as strictly a LOOGY makes no sense to me right now. No, because it tallies entirely with what he threw, fastball, curveball, no third pitch. I know there are some here that think entirely in terms of numbers, so why don't you make a nice long list for me of effective major league starters with just two pitches. Then multiply the number of pitchers on that list by Adam Dunn's VORP and divide by the square root of Derrek Lee's BABIP in the first half of 2005 and tell me what you get. Numbers are great, and I love using them too, but they're the end result of processes. If the processes are bad, and you can often see that with your eyes, then the numbers will be too.

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job? I think Hill should be a LOOGY because he's shown absolutely no desire to throw either his changeup or cutter at the major league level. As a result, he's working with two pitches, a very average fastball and a superb curveball. Righties mash him and he can't go through a major league order three times. righties don't mash him...at least they didn't in the minors. 1) Most minor leaguers can't hit breaking stuff to save their lives. 2) He gave up 20 home runs in 130.2 innings in the minor leagues this year. That's an awful lot. There's some mashing going on somewhere. 3) In the majors he had the following split -- .250/.400/.300 vs lefties in 25 PA, .286/.375/.486 vs righties in 80 PA. Of the 9 extra base hits he allowed, 8 were to right-handers. If you have any way of finding out his minor league splits, I'd love to read that. But right now the small sample size major league numbers tally with what I saw. How many pitchers can you name that have just two pitches and go through major league orders with regularity? That's the issue here, the absence of the changeup and cutter, a pitch that'll stop hitters being able to sit on his stuff. It's not like that at all. I just don't see a pitcher with the stuff to be a major league starter. Great curveball, average fastball, and a cutter and changeup that he hasn't been willing to throw yet in his major league career. Why is that?

I'm not opposed to trading Hill either. Frankly I wish Hendry had done it at the trade deadline, Mitre too (if not earlier with Mitre). Hendry doesn't seem to get it when it comes to cashing in on perceived value. I still really like Mitre as a fourth or fifth starter long term, but he's never going to fill that position with the Cubs, and as I've said a million times the guy is not a reliever, so it's always been a case of exploiting the best time to trade him. With Mitre out of options next spring, and the memory of his great starts against the BlueJays and Marlins fading as Dusty screws him around with irregular bullpen work, that time has gone. Wellemeyer should have gone at the deadline too if possible.

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job? I think Hill should be a LOOGY because he's shown absolutely no desire to throw either his changeup or cutter at the major league level. As a result, he's working with two pitches, a very average fastball and a superb curveball. Righties mash him and he can't go through a major league order three times.

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

Cool, someone else from the UK. Hi! Go Jaxx!

One thing that really needs to be considered when you're talking about Arizona prospects is their system's minor league park factors, which are all hugely hitter friendly. All numbers based on 2003 courtesy of BA (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040408parkfactors.html)... Triple-A : TUCSON (League Factor 1070, Park Factor 1294) Double-A : EL PASO (League Factor 1061, Park Factor 1113) High-A : LANCASTER (League Factor 1160, Park Factor 1143) Low-A : SOUTH BEND (League Factor 975, Park Factor 968) As you can see, Lancaster, El Paso, Tucson, these are extremely favourable hitting environments. They're playing in great hitter's leagues, and, not only that, but great hitter's parks relative to those great hitter's leagues. So you really have to take the numbers of Quentin and Jackson with enormous pinches of salt. I think the pair of them are both very overrated as a result. They're both very solid prospects, don't get me wrong, and I love their plate discipline and wish the Cubs could breed more players with that kind of knowledge of the strike zone, as opposed to home run hackers like Harvey, but you guys that are talking about Jackson in terms of 40+ home run power are absolutely out of your mind I think. He hit all of 8 while playing for Tucson aged 23 while weighing 205 pounds, for crying out loud, he's not going to be filling out too much more. It's all very well saying that "doubles will turn into home runs with time", but it's closer to the truth that all he's got is doubles power. As for Quentin, I like him quite a bit more at this stage. He's a better all-round player, a better fielder, a better baserunner. I also think he's a better hitter, simply because he's got more power while he's got the same ability to hit for average and get on-base as Jackson.

WOO! GO JAXX! What was that I was saying about Billingsley having his blowups! Anyone care to give me a scouting report on what Ryu was throwing last night?