Mephistopheles

No.

It's funny that you guys bring this up. One second you complain because the Cubs are too aggressive at the plate and now you're complaining that he's not aggressive enough. Derrek Lee has always shown the ability to work the count. He takes a lot of pitches, and consequently he sometimes has to swing at poor pitches late in the count. Derrek Lee's pitch selection is perfectly fine and this thread is pointless.

I am all for it.

no.

bama managed to beat hawaii last year and kentucky managed to beat clemson. theyre not great but theyre certainly solid teams. theyre no worse than last years ucla now are they....

Okay assume that it's the same difficulty (and I think it is that or the SEC one is tougher). They still have a tough South Carolina and Alabama games. Those teams are better than anyone left in the Big Ten. Not to mention they're lucky that they don't get Tennessee or Georgia this year. AND they have to play ANOTHER top ten team presumably in the SEC championship game if they make it. The SEC gauntlet for any team is significantly harder than any conference schedule for another team. Even Kentucky on the SEC schedule is pretty damn good. The league's loaded and deserves all the ESPN hype it gets. It's much much much harder to run through the SEC unscathed than it is the Big Ten, Big XII or Pac 10. The difference is night and day. And in LSU's case we haven't even considered the fact they play all of that and still got Va Tech.

The schedule is definitely in our favor, but last year we had Auburn, Florida, Arkansas, and Tennessee on the road. it really doesn't matter though. if you assume that in a perfect world the tigers have a 75% chance of beating each of those teams, the probability that they go undefeated is just 32%. Throw in the title game and the probability is down to 24%. thats the problem with the sec. its a gauntlet like no other. les miles was right.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=nl&qual=n&type=3&season=2007

tp threw about four mph higher in hs

I don't know about statistical noise. ERA gives you exactly the target value that it purports to. That happens to be a poor estimation of true talent and how a pitcher has pitched. It gets better the larger the sample. define "true talent" He shouldn't have to define "true talent." You know damn well what he means. No I don't. how good they really are. see darrell may 2003. his true talent was a 5.00 pitcher but his era was below 4.00

I don't know about statistical noise. ERA gives you exactly the target value that it purports to. That happens to be a poor estimation of true talent and how a pitcher has pitched. It gets better the larger the sample. define "true talent" He shouldn't have to define "true talent." You know damn well what he means.

So runs scored against bad pitchers are less valuable than runs scored against good ones? Runs scored against bad teams (strength of schedule) don't count for as much as those against elite teams? If you use this as a statement to that effect, you'd have to break down what runs were scored in what kids of games. Your sample size gets smaller and smaller. Now it sounds like you're valuing "close and late stats" Does this mean you believe in "clutch"? No you're missing that. If the Cubs schedule was very easy and faced a lot of bad pitching staffs, wouldn't we expect the Cubs offensive output to increase because of this, in runs? Thats all I was saying. A run scored against a bad pitcher is easier than a run scored off of a good pitcher. It's relative. And no, it's not clutch, it's called being able to hit good pitching. A good offense is one that can hit all types of pitching at a better than average clip (not better than league average clip, better than the leagues average off that pitching).

Actually they don't. If you want to disprove your statement you also have to show that the offense is not prone to more low scoring games than the average offense (in other words that they're not scoring a lot on bad pitchers late. running up the score so to speak in blowouts). Also you didn't consider park effects. You didn't consider strength of schedule (or lack thereof). In fact, something that does include most of these factors (EqA) argues that the Cubs offense has been pathetic most of the season, posting an alarming .252 EqA which is good for 13th in the league. It, however, doesn't prove this either. It's worth pointing out. Now respond to my other points.

people got it. you are incorrect. he certainly is. run through the numbers if you'd like. and let me provide this link viewtopic.php?t=43717 So your argument is that Zambrano's hitting makes up for the pitching deficit, huh? Well I took you up on your invitation to run through the numbers. Zambrano has produced 11 runs (8 runs + 5 RBI - 2 HR = 11 RP). Lilly has produced 9 runs (5 runs + 4 RBI - 0 HR = 9 RP). Hill has produced 5 runs (0 runs + 5 RBI - 0 HR = 5 RP). So let's just net those runs produced with the bat off of each guy's earned runs allowed on the mound and see what we get. Lopping off 11 earned runs drops Zambrano's ERA from 4.06 to 3.51. With 9 fewer ER, Lilly's ERA falls from 3.85 to 3.16. 5 fewer ER nudges Hill's ERA from 3.68 to 3.06. Some of us here are smart and don't use RBI and R to gauge offensive production.

VORP 38.1 - Carlos Zambrano (31.4 + 6.7) 34.6 - Rich Hill (35.3 - 0.7) 33.9 - Ted Lilly (35.6 - 1.7)

you're going to judge him on one night? every pitcher has a bad night. does webb suck because the padres scored 5 off of him last night? he must not be the diamondback's best pitcher by your logic. Zambrano hasn't been the best pitcher on the Cubs this season. Hill and Lilly have been better. This isn't entirely true. Hill and Lilly have been more effective on the mound. I wouldn't say they've both have been better pitchers. So Zambrano has been less effective, yet better? I think we're going to need another longwinded rambling paragraph out of you to explain this one. people got it. you're going to judge him on one night? every pitcher has a bad night. does webb suck because the padres scored 5 off of him last night? he must not be the diamondback's best pitcher by your logic. Zambrano hasn't been the best pitcher on the Cubs this season. Hill and Lilly have been better. This isn't entirely true. Hill and Lilly have been more effective on the mound. I wouldn't say they've both have been better pitchers. So Zambrano has been less effective, yet better? I think we're going to need another longwinded rambling paragraph out of you to explain this one. I believe he's saying that how much better of a hitter Zambrano is over Hill and Lilly make up for him being a slightly worse of a pitcher this year. Zambrano is not that good of a hitter. I don't think so either. Just offering a guess as to what he was trying to say. you and you're going to judge him on one night? every pitcher has a bad night. does webb suck because the padres scored 5 off of him last night? he must not be the diamondback's best pitcher by your logic. Zambrano hasn't been the best pitcher on the Cubs this season. Hill and Lilly have been better. This isn't entirely true. Hill and Lilly have been more effective on the mound. I wouldn't say they've both have been better pitchers. So Zambrano has been less effective, yet better? I think we're going to need another longwinded rambling paragraph out of you to explain this one. I believe he's saying that how much better of a hitter Zambrano is over Hill and Lilly make up for him being a slightly worse of a pitcher this year. Zambrano is not that good of a hitter. you are incorrect. he certainly is. run through the numbers if you'd like. and let me provide this link viewtopic.php?t=43717

you're going to judge him on one night? every pitcher has a bad night. does webb suck because the padres scored 5 off of him last night? he must not be the diamondback's best pitcher by your logic. Zambrano hasn't been the best pitcher on the Cubs this season. Hill and Lilly have been better. This isn't entirely true. Hill and Lilly have been more effective on the mound. I wouldn't say they've both have been better pitchers. Weren't you against re-signing Zambrano to that contract and didn't you want Carlos Silva to replace him in the rotation? I don't know if he did, but if he did say that, what's that go to do with his statement? exactly. this is irrelevant.

It shouldn't have required one. That was my whole point. And CR only griped at me because he was a moderator. I'm sure if he wasn't a moderator he would have certainly gotten my point (and I'm sure he did get it but he knew his duty was to gripe) So really it's just him doing his job and everyone clearly gets the point. So it worked.

you're going to judge him on one night? every pitcher has a bad night. does webb suck because the padres scored 5 off of him last night? he must not be the diamondback's best pitcher by your logic. Zambrano hasn't been the best pitcher on the Cubs this season. Hill and Lilly have been better. who do you start game 1 in the playoffs (assuming they're all equally rested)? don't know about you...but i start big Z. He's not saying he'd start Hill or Lilly. He's arguing that from April 1st to now the other two pitchers have been better. He knows that that doesn't necassarily mean that they will be better than Zambrano from tomorrow to November. Zambrano's career line probably gives him an edge in the eyes of Raisin.

you're going to judge him on one night? every pitcher has a bad night. does webb suck because the padres scored 5 off of him last night? he must not be the diamondback's best pitcher by your logic. Zambrano hasn't been the best pitcher on the Cubs this season. Hill and Lilly have been better. This isn't entirely true. Hill and Lilly have been more effective on the mound. I wouldn't say they've both have been better pitchers.

Alex White's too low. I am enamored with him.

Why don't you either add some actual substance to your posts or quit criticizing every post? Do I need to add anything to this? It should be fairly obvious that my point was that it's a limited sample using a bad statistic. So it really is worthless. I didn't think I needed to point that out. That and I was in a hurry and didn't feel like posting anything else before class. Also, isn't it a little hypocritical for someone to tell someone to stop criticizing when in fact they're also just criticizing? I know you're a moderator, but I'm just saying... There was obviously substance to my post. The number of words do not define the substance of the post. This is one case where being bluntly honest achieves the effect of pointing something out statistically. My point was that a four game win loss sample for a pitcher is worthless. So, the topic "Zambrano 0-4 since signing" is worthless.

what a worthless topic

I had forgotten about Novoa. God it's so great that he is hurt

The Cardinals blow. They are of no concern to me. Just like I wasn't concerned that the Brewers had a large lead in early June, late May. Smart people are like that.