cheapseats

I'm in a league that rewards completions and penalizes incompletions, too, but the scoring isn't exactly the same. My projections show Favre, Kitna, and Rivers (in that order) bunched up together this week. You could pick any of them. I'd probably go with Favre, but he is feast or famine.

I'm against using Rusch, but I really like the idea of tandem starters. And I don't think agents would mind so much if it were sold correctly. Z would be throwing fewer pitches per game, obviously, but he would be getting more innings per year, giving him a chance to increase strikeout numbers and some other counting stats.

I'd rather see a 4-man rotation than a 6-man rotation.

I'm not Bruce, and I can't tell you whether the Cubs gave up on him, but Cedeno's track record in the minors never indicated he'd be a good hitter. His OPS was below .600 in 2002 and 2003, for example. His one good year in the minors consisted of only 245 at-bats. His BABIP in AAA was .393, a number almost impossible to sustain. His OBP has always been driven by his batting average. At one point last year, he was seeing fewer pitches per plate appearance than any other qualified batter in MLB. I can't really comment on the likelihood of his defense improving, but it's doubtful that he'll ever become even an adequate hitter in MLB.

http://web.mit.edu/jonb/www/animate/grinch.gif I know, I know, don't shoot the messenger. Glad you made the distinction. I think I'd get an ulcer if I had your job, watching the team make mistakes and being powerless to do anything about it.

http://web.mit.edu/jonb/www/animate/grinch.gif I know, I know, don't shoot the messenger.

.276 .366 .526 .247 .306 .394 I wouldn't hire you to be a GM.

when did guesses & approximations become facts? the # of pitches approximation done is actually very well thought out and could quite likely be correct but i would hardly call it a fact. the 1st & second premises are accurate though. If anything, the estimate is high because pitches per plate appearance trended upward as offense increased between 1988 and 2005. There's no reason to believe that the same trend didn't occur between 1971 and 1998, but since there's no data available, I went with figures from 1988, when offensive levels were higher than they were in 1971 but lower than they are in today's game. It is very possible to count exactly how many batters Fergie faced if someone really wants to. Just go through the play-by-play at retrosheet. It's actually kind of fun to do that. I really think Fergie doesn't realize that the game has changed since the time he pitched. If you look at his 1971, he threw a whole lot of complete games, even if he lost. He'd face too many batters to do that on a consistent basis in today's game.

My guess is that they trade for a reliever who hasn't closed before or use someone currently on the roster.

Do you have stats for number of pitches thrown per season during that era? Pitches per plate appearance have increased pretty dramatically since then. it sure doesnt sound like that is the case according to this quote from Ferguson Jenkins: "I hear in the clubhouse all the time about a pitcher having a twinge, and they go on the disabled list. I would have never won any ballgames if I would have missed a start with a twinge. "Pitchers are definitely protected," added Jenkins. "I used to warm up and throw 100 pitches in the bullpen and then throw 150 pitches in the game. I would throw nine innings, which they usually won't let these young men do right now." link: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060709&content_id=1549169&vkey=allstar2006&fext=.jsp He also walked barefoot in the snow, 5 miles, and uphill both ways to school every morning. When he got home, he shoveled coal into the family furnace for 3 hours just so the ice was thin enough the break though for his evening bath. After he was washed up, he cut the family firewood for the next day with the edge of his hand because his family couldn't afford an axe. He didn't complain one bit! Whippersnappers these days and their pitch counts. Back when old people were young, everything and everybody was better in every way. i'm sure you are trying to be funny but have you ever looked at the career stats jenkins had? perhaps you should do so and compare them to modern day pitchers and maybe you'll see he has a point. http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jenkife01.shtml His stats are irrelevant. What is his point? Everyone now a days is a wussy? If everyone was an ironman like back in the day people wouldn't get injured? Injuries are due to people not toughing it out? Managers are babying these guys? Circumstances have changed. Pichers are a valuable commodity and are treated as such. We know more about arm injuries and how to prevent them now. Pitchers are throwing lots of breaking pitches and are throwing harder. There is a litanty of possibly reasons for pitchers not pitching as many innings. Jenkins quote isn't one of them, imo. somehow i think the opinion of a guy with 4500 ip and 267 cg & 49 shutouts in 664 games has a little more basis than a few fans opinions. In 1971, the year Fergie threw 325 innings, he gave up 304 hits and 37 walks. He hit 5 batters. He should have faced about 1321 batters. That number doesn't account for runners on base due to error, but it also doesn't account for runners thrown out stealing and double plays. If anything, I'd guess he faced fewer than 1321 batters, and a spot check of play by play at retrosheet makes me pretty confident in that statement. Pitch data only goes back to 1988. No qualified pitcher that year comes close to Fergie's incredible BB/9 ratio, but the best comp I can find is Bryn Smith. Bryn averaged 3.39 P/PA. Fergie probably threw fewer pitches per plate appearance in 1971 because he had better control and because the pitch data that we do have suggests that pitches per plate appearance tend to increase over a period of several years. Average pitches per plate appearance went up by .2 or so between 1988 and 2005. Anyway, using the 3.39 figure, Fergie would have thrown about 4478 pitches in 1971. That works out to 4478 pitches, or an average of 115 per start. That's 5 more than Zambrano or Arroyo last year, and a long way from 150 pitches. I don't think Fergie intentionally lies about his pitch counts, but if he really believes he threw 150 pitches on any kind of regular basis, he's deluding himself.

He's too valuable as a starter to be converted to closer. I've read he might not have a spot in their rotation.

Actually, I think that's partly the point of the article. There are very few who are great from year to year. IIRC, it's been a couple of years since Mariano Rivera converted 75% or more of his chances. That being the case, spending $$$ on a closer is not something that I'd normally want my team's GM to do.

.306 .394 .700 Pretty bad. Considering it was his first stint in the bigs? Take out his first month and those stats look a lot better. Pagan did pretty darn well. I'm going to enjoy seeing Angel on the 2007 Cubs roster. You can't just arbitrarily take away a period of time and pretend it never happened. .251 .310 .360 His ZIPS projection. If you're going to enjoy that, I'm going to guess you also enjoy poking yourself in the eye with sharp objects.

.306 .394 .700 Pretty bad.

Well, it would certainly be fair to question the use of the stat to rank individual seasons, but as far as simply identifying them, I think it's quite useful. John Rocker really did have a very good season in 1999. Dustin Hermanson was fantastic in 2005. Kim was dominating in 2002. Turnbow had an ERA under 2.00 in 2005. Not saying they didn't have good seasons, but I watched seasons like Turnbow's in '05 and Kim's in '02. Good, but I wouldn't call them special. This stat concoction thing has gotten a bit out of hand. People are making stuff up, posting it on the internet, and then everyone's thinking it actually means something. I rebel against you, stat-maker-uppers! Personally, I'd be ecstatic if someone in the 2007 Cubs pen has a season like Turnbow's or Kim's. Is there a better way to judge "closer" performance? I rebel against your rebellion. :twisted:

I'd be all for it. The biggest hangup would probably be the money, as your scenario still has the Giants sending cash to Florida, and budget is an issue for SF right now.

Well, it would certainly be fair to question the use of the stat to rank individual seasons, but as far as simply identifying them, I think it's quite useful. John Rocker really did have a very good season in 1999. Dustin Hermanson was fantastic in 2005. Kim was dominating in 2002. Turnbow had an ERA under 2.00 in 2005.

I don't. I really don't think he's that crafty. What's crafty about that? That wouldn't accomplish anything. I guess it's better than publicly badmouthing your own players. Maybe it is possible to get other teams to overvalue your players by talking them up. I'd hope other GM's have more objective means of evaluating talent, but this is baseball...

I think 2003 Eric Gagne, 2003 John Smoltz, 1981 Rollie Fingers, 1990 Dennis Eckersley, 2006 Jonathan Papelbon - to name a few - might disagree. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5428 The Eckersley, Gagne, and Fingers seasons are 2-3-4 in that list behind Mesa. Mike Jackson (!) is 5th on the list. The whole article is interesting. One point that jumped out at me: since 1985, one in four great seasons by closers was by a pitcher who had never recorded 20 or more saves in a prior season. In other words, about 25% of great seasons by a closer since 1985 have been enjoyed by guys who weren't "proven closers."

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003. Also an incredible year. I just think sometimes people forget how good Mesa was for that one season. Yes, but that's not what you originally said. You said you'd take Mesa over Smith and that is just an utterly ridiculous statement. Certain stats can be argued; others can't. Pick any stat you want; Smith beats Mesa in all of them and flat out dominates in most of them. K/IP Mesa: .67 Smith: .97 BB/IP Mesa: .42 Smith: .38 ERA: Mesa: 4.27 Smith: 3.03 And of course the all important one of Saves Mesa: 320 Smith: 478 Smith has 1.5 times the saves Mesa has in over 200 LESS innings. That is why Smith is being considered for the Hall of Fame and Mesa will never come anywhere close. One great year does not make someone a great player. Otherwise by your argument we need to include Brady Anderson as one of the great sluggers of the last 10 years. I was kidding. But thanks for making the case for Lee Smith. As for saves being "all important," I probably care about all the other stats you posted more than I care about saves.

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003. Also an incredible year. I just think sometimes people forget how good Mesa was for that one season. Wetteland was pretty amazing in 1993. He threw 21 more innings, had a much higher K/9 and K/BB, and slightly lower WHIP. They gave up the same number of HR, 3. And then, like Mesa, was still good in subsequent years but didn't come close to repeating that performance. As you said in another thread, fans (and GMs) get all hot and bothered for a "proven closer," but one can't look at a bullpen performance from the previous year and expect the same thing in the current year. Bullpen performance fluctuates too much. Another interesting thing about Wetteland's 1993: In about one out of every five appearances, he pitched for more than one inning. That doesn't happen much now.

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003. Also an incredible year. I just think sometimes people forget how good Mesa was for that one season.

I don't know what's in the water today, but I agree with you 100%. How do we even define "proven closer?" Dusty Baker wanted to go with Latroy Hawkins in 2005 because he had "done it before" and Dempster hadn't. So what? I don't even know how to determine if a closer is successful or not. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, there were only 11 teams that converted 75% or more of their save opportunities. I'd actually rather build my bullpen the way the Twins have done it, by bringing up cheap guys who can pitch for league minimum. The Twins have broken in starters like Santana and Liriano by bringing them out of the pen at first. The Cubs did the same with Zambrano. Earl Weaver used to do it all the time. I'd rather have Guzman, for example, regularly pitching out of the bullpen in the majors than gaining more experience in the minors.

:shock: Yeah that's the kicker for me too. You been drinking today cheap? 8-) Who cares when or where a closer started, btw. The comment said good closers won't be Americans, not what era they came from. In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

A very good closer. And a Panamanian.