Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Mephistopheles

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,724

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Mephistopheles

  1. Mephistopheles
    so we went from terrible to average spending 150 million in the process when we probably could have done it for less than half that.
  2. Mephistopheles
    Cutting dead weight is a cheap alternative to spending money on a big bat and it's usually just as important. I can't believe you are arguing against this. Sure you can win with having a dead spot in the lineup, but it's a hell of a lot easier not having a dead spot in the lineup. Isn't that common sense? Going from a piece of crap at SS to a slightly below average to average SS is going to add more runs to the Cubs as going from a slightly above average RFer in Jones to a Carlos Lee or whoever or whatever. Plus it's going to be a lot cheaper. It's a pretty simple concept.
  3. Mephistopheles
    Think the Rockies would take Jones and Marshall/Marmol/Mateo/Ryu for Jennings? With Hawpe and Holliday?
  4. Mephistopheles
    I don't think that is really the case. Most teams have a weak hitter at some point in the lineup. Barrett's plus abilities on offense help offset weak hitters at SS. Generally, I would say one bad hitter in the lineup, particularly a great defensive shortstop, can't be pointed to as the single problem with an offense. Cubs shortstops hit .246/.275/.324 last season. Only the Royals had a lower OPS from their ss. Only FIVE teams had their SS produce an OPS under .690, much less under .600.
  5. Mephistopheles
    when will the cubs realize it's the .203 EqA from their shortstops that's holding their offense back?
  6. Mephistopheles
    So last year the Cubs got a .249 EqA out of CF from Pierre for 526 outs and Soriano's career EqA is .287. Of course Soriano won't get out as often, but 480 is +32 runs, and I am liking that. Couple that with Lee getting healthy and our lineup is looking pretty good.
  7. Mephistopheles
    Meche and Lilly please
  8. Mephistopheles
    http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f189/kctigers23/Soriano8.jpg Remind people of anything?
  9. Mephistopheles
    okay jim, why didnt you do this to beltran
  10. Mephistopheles
    Well, ND drops again-this time it is again unbelievable. Arkansas was not impressive against Miss State, and because of that game they move past ND? That's typical of how it's been this season (I did look it up-Arkansas was behind ND in the coaches poll last week). Rutgers lost, so perhaps the points that made ND ahead of Arkansas last week was because Akransas was behind Rutgers on a lot of peoples ballots. So they moved up one spot, but ND didnt gain anything on those ballots
  11. Mephistopheles
    meh theres like no chance uf makes it in. its a shame, their only loss was to the preseason #2 team and they beat three top 10 teams if they beat Arkansas.
  12. Mephistopheles
    i want no part of jason marquis
  13. Mephistopheles
    http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_321095643.html That is such a terrible name to fight over
  14. Mephistopheles
    Not by $20m or whatever he makes. Estimates of his defense have ranged anywhere from -20 to -30 runs some even higher. He's 45-50 runs better offensively than an average LF.
  15. Mephistopheles
    Manny going from a small left field at Fenway to a rather large one at Wrigley makes me cringe.
  16. Mephistopheles
    http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewDraftArchive.do?draftId=5
  17. Mephistopheles
    Looking at one factor for parks is stupid. It's naive to think that a park affects each pitcher the same.
  18. Mephistopheles
    Basically it measures how closely related two variables are. An r of 1 would be perfect correlation. An r of 0 would be no correlation. An r of -1 would be perfect inverse correlation. As for the formula it's rather complicated using sum of squares. Oh, and r^2 is simply what it sounds like. The r correlation squared.
  19. Mephistopheles
    Looking at the pitchers who changed leagues from 1994-2005 with 100 innings we have a sample size of 115 pitchers. On average their ERA's went down .61 points making the switch. However the r correlation was a lowly .356 which is lower than the normal year to year correlation. To break it up even further, their K rate increase 10.6%. Their BB rate went down 2.8%. Their HR rate went down 5.6%. Of course these translations aren't going to be linear. Best fit equations for each: (I used K/9, BB/9 and HR/9) 1.3074* ((AL BB/9)^ 0.6872) = NL BB/9; r^2 = .528 0.0222*(AL K/9)^2 + 0.5307*(AL K/9) + 2.4676 = NL K/9; r^2 = .564 0.2572(AL HR/9)^2 - 0.2701*(AL K/9) + 0.9832 = NL HR/9; r^2 = .159 The HR rate is probably because I didn't adjust it for parks. But oh well. Eh. there's really no reason to adjust ERAs and come up with an equation. Sure on average they lose about .6 from their ERA, but look at the graph. The r correlation shows it's meaningless. It's much better to look at his periphs than look at his ERA and just say it's in the AL and will go down. Statistically speaking a r correl of .356 would be saying that his AL era has about 12% to do with what his ERA will in the NL. http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f189/kctigers23/ERACOMP1.jpg
  20. Mephistopheles
    No one's saying his 2004 production was bad, just expecting it to ever occur again or get close isn't a good idea. We shouldn't be concerned on what he has done, just what he will do. He didn't have a terrible BABIP last season. It was slightly worse than average. His 2004 and 2005 were bigger anamolies and helped him. He had it coming. 2004: 14.1 LD%, .272 BABIP against 2005: 18.0 LD%, .287 BABIP against 2006: 17.3 LD%, .322 BABIP against I'd say that his 2006 is much more flukish, and I think you could make the argument that 2004 and 2005 aren't too out of whack either. Ha! I was looking at Baseball Reference's career splits when I thought I had this seasons. Oops! Oh well considering his career BABIP is .306, I would believe he's going to be much closer to that than his 04 or 05 BABIP 20 points lower. Anyways controlling LD% isn't much of a skill. It's likely that the 2004 was a huge outlier at under 15 percent. Though his high GB rates does keep it down some.
  21. Mephistopheles
    No one's saying his 2004 production was bad, just expecting it to ever occur again or get close isn't a good idea. We shouldn't be concerned on what he has done, just what he will do. He didn't have a terrible BABIP last season. It was slightly worse than average. His 2004 and 2005 were bigger anamolies and helped him. He had it coming.
  22. Mephistopheles
    From an empirical test I did I found that it was around half a run. From a theoretical test I did I found it was around .3 runs. That's usually the difference in ERA for the leagues, but the last couple of seasons it's been closer.
  23. Mephistopheles
    Break apart the OBP please. His BABIP should have been around .300. In 2004 it was .277, that's going to lower his OBP just on pure randomness. It does it to a lower extent in 2005.
  24. Mephistopheles
    The league average is in the AL. We can take average pitchers from the AL and say they should improve in the NL and be better than average more so than Westbrook.
  25. Mephistopheles
    Fair enough, then Suppan's walk rate is inflated by walking the 8 holes at an increased rate in order to get the pitcher. There's still a lot of data to suggest that the likelihood of him being better than average is low. There are a lot of GB pitchers who don't K a lot of batters. They get weeded out. Westbrook is at best an average pitcher. Sure that's a huge upgrade over what we got out of the last two slots last season, but there are plenty of good options out there we can get, who have much higher upside.
×
×
  • Create New...