CubsWin

Wow...

I completely agree with what you said, and it was very well said. But... While the win is a stat to be considered last, I do think it can have something to say about a pitcher's competitiveness in certain situations that probably can't be derived from other numbers. Maybe a metric for runners allowed and runs allowed with a 1-run lead, 2-run lead, 1-run deficit and 2-run deficit. Just looking at the overall number of wins may not be so telling, but digging deeper can reveal a pitcher's consistent ability to keep his team close even on days when he might not have his best stuff. But then you're not talking about Wins, you're looking beyond them to find a measure of a player's aptitude, just like when you look at other metrics like you mentioned in the part of the post I snipped. Yeah, you're right. I was thinking the same thing as I wrote it. I used to find that aptitude by looking into the circumstances of a pitcher's victory, but with the onset of sabermetrics, you no longer have to.

so you'd rather they lose? that makes a lot sense. Why even have Low A and High A then if you are just gonna discount everything the players do here and just go off potential? Wins are a poor metric to rate a pitcher by anywhere, but especially in the low minors where pitchers don't go as long and relievers aren't always the best. Kc wasn't talking about wins or losses as a team stat but just that they are an incomplete and poor stat to judge a pitcher with. I'd rather judge a pitcher based on peripheral stats involving walk and strikeout rates, WHIP, BAA, etc. At the lower levels of the minor leagues, scouting and "potential" is still very important since the players haven't played professionally for long and have a ways to reach a finished product. Also at the lower levels, prospects can be playing against far less advanced competition which will allow them to rack up the stats. I completely disagree. You pay a pitcher to win. While it shouldnt be the only stat used to judge it MUST be used. Especially in this league. It shows that a pitcher has the ability to go 5 innings and pick up a win. More importantly it shows the ability to keep a team in the game and get a win. Look out, here it comes... Wins don't tell you anything that can't be derived from other numbers. I can look at a 5 IP, 3 ER line and tell that a guy kept the team in the game without factoring in the quality of the bullpen or his team's offense in the won/lost column. I can look at a 6 IP, 1 ER line and tell he did a better job, but he may easily have gotten the win in the first game and not in the second. And wins absolutely don't project. A pitcher isn't going to get to take his bullpen, offense, and opposition with him to the majors, so why should they make a difference in how quickly he gets there? A starting pitcher's job is to go as many innings as possible while giving up as few runs as possible. If he's doing that, his job is done. There's no need to incorporate a team stat to determine that. I completely agree with what you said, and it was very well said. But... While the win is a stat to be considered last, I do think it can have something to say about a pitcher's competitiveness in certain situations that probably can't be derived from other numbers. Maybe a metric for runners allowed and runs allowed with a 1-run lead, 2-run lead, 1-run deficit and 2-run deficit. Just looking at the overall number of wins may not be so telling, but digging deeper can reveal a pitcher's consistent ability to keep his team close even on days when he might not have his best stuff. Still, without question other stats are far more revealing about a pitcher's ability. For me, the magic triangle of numbers without getting deep into sabermetrics (which I still need to educate myself on) is BAA or Hits per inning, Ks/Inning and K/BB. IMO, that trio of stats along with ERA can paint a good picture of what a guy is capable of.

Excellent point, I had forgotten about that. Marmol definitely moves up but I still think you are underestimating how remarkable it is for Gallagher to have achieved what he has at the age of 20. Unless you've studied film and compared them side by side, how can you know something like that. I mean, I readily agree that Prior is likely the better pitcher, but all we've heard from the beginning with Sean is his control and how he can locate his fastball. Before he was able to do that at 88-91 mph, now he is doing it 91-94 mph. That sounds a lot like what Prior does to me. And you are probably right about his breaking pitches still needing some work, but he certainly has the time to work on them, HE'S 20! He'd be young for the Low-A MWL! Again, since this is a 23 & under list, I'm valuing age a little more and current performance a little less.

I think Guzman and Marmol are ahead of Gallagher too. I do think Gallagher rates as higher than a #3 pitcher if the improvements he has made (in terms of the quality of his breaking pitches and changeup) remain, along with the better velocity on the FB. But even comparing just his scouting report to 2002 Prior is getting ahead of ourselves, for now. Guzman is 24 and thus can't be considered for this list. Marmol is a better pitcher than Gallagher is right now, but he is also 23 while Gallagher is just 20. How much better will Sean get in the next 3 seasons? As far as Prior is concerned, I qualified my statement when I first made it by saying that I was not comparing the two pitcher's ceilings. I don't think that can be compared really. I never compared their frames either. So I agree with you on both counts. But they are similar in their abilities to locate a low-to-mid 90s fastball. And, perhaps the source is a little biased, but to read Gallagher's own comments and more importantly BA's comments on his breaking pitches and changeup, they sounded a little further ahead than you described. And this from another scout quoted by Baseball Prospectus...

Well, it comes down to which you consider more important in a prospect (and how much you value each) - ceiling and the likelihood of reaching that ceiling. Then again, if Gallagher's pitch velocity has indeed reached the mid-90s and his breaking pitches become the plus pitches I think they will, I think his ceiling will be higher than a #3 pitcher. I thinking about the same thing. This list is a little different than a straight prospects list in that it is the best that are under 23, which, to me, means less of an emphasis on current performance and a little more emphasis on youth and ceiling. However, a mixture of both would be ideal. Gallagher possesses that mixture while Pawelek simply hasn't pitched enough at high enough levels to show what he can do. He may indeed be better than Sean and simply hasn't had a chance to prove it, but Sean has been given those chances and is performing well, so, for the moment, I think Gallagher or Pie have to top this list. If Sean's performance sours in West Tenn, that would likely change.

During his AA debut last night, he was hitting 94 with some regularity and touched 96. How much more projection does he have to have? He is a 20-year-old pitching at AA who by all scouting reports is able to locate a low-to-mid 90s fastball with consistency and has a good curve, good slurve and a good changeup. I'm not saying his ceiling is similar, but that scouting report sounds a lot like Mark Prior's. Given his age, his level and the fact that he is currently performing well, he and Pie are the top two prospects in my mind.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree, but if he keeps putting up the numbers he has been as he moves along in the minors, I think there definitely is a bright future ahead of him. Heck, guys like Marshall and Marmol were always projected as possible 2/3 guys. Felix Pie is still top dog in the farm system, imo. As for your list, CubsWin, I'd throw Billy Petrick, Tyler Colvin, and Jeff Samardzija onto it. I added Petrick. Good call. I'll gladly add Colvin and Samardzija when they are officially signed.

I also put Dopirak at High A. It was late, so late it was early.

Since the present day Cubs leave a lot to be desired, I figured a thread dedicated to the Cubs prospects with the brightest futures would be good right now. I know, potential Cub contributors like Rich Hill and Angel Guzman can't be included on this list, but so what, we've talked a lot about them already. The 21st, 22nd and 23rd names might be a challenge to identify, but that's part of fun. 1. Sean Gallagher - AA (20) Commanding a fastball in the low-to-mid 90s at age 20 with a repertoire of breaking pitches that also has the scouts talking, Sean Gallagher has to have the brightest future of any Cubs prospect at the moment. 2. Felix Pie - AAA (21) I almost put Felix at #1, but his struggles at AAA are cause for concern. Of course, then I remembered that he is two years too young for his level and that he's got plenty of time. His mix of age, work ethic, attitude, physical skills, past performance and undiscovered ceiling more than qualify him for the #2 slot and possibly have him top this list. 3. Ronny Cedeno - ML (23) He might not be considered a prospect anymore, but since he is still just 23, that's a good thing. Through the first 2 1/2 months of his first full major league season, he is hitting right around the .300 mark. His athleticism is eye-popping. His range at SS is remarkable and he has yet to be thrown out stealing in 5 attempts. In 310 career ABs, his line reads .297/.330/.394. He is on pace to strike out 100 times this season, but at age 23, he's got time to improve in that area and add some power. 4. Carlos Marmol - ML (23) Even if he was still in West Tenn, his numbers would justify a high ranking on this list, but seeing his stuff first hand and seeing the success he's having at the ML level pushes him even higher, for now. We'll see how he does in today's game... 5. Sean Marshall - ML (23) Much like Marmol, Marshall's performance at the ML level, though mixed, has to place him high on a list like this one. He doesn't possess the electric stuff that Marmol has been flashing, but his poise, intelligence, excellent curve and fastball that tops out in the low 90s have him being seen as a fixture in the Cubs rotation for years to come. 6. Mark Pawelek - Short Season A (19) Only because of his age is he this high. He has pitched very little since joining the Cubs, but being left-handed, 19 and very talented is a deadly combination. The little we have seen of him has looked good and in the "what have you done for me lately" world of message board prospect rankings, that's good enough. 7. Donnie Veal - Low A (21) The Don is beginning to figure out the MWL and should be promoted soon. He's got all the right stats headed in the right direction. He just earned his 5th win last night to go 5-3 on the season through 14 starts averaging just over 5 innings per. He has allowed only 44 hits in 73 2/3 IP while striking out 86. His WHIP is now down to 1.14. He's a power lefty who can make 'em miss. That's pretty rare. And if he gets promoted this season, he'll be ahead of schedule. 8. Mark Reed - Low A (20) Mark turned 20 back in April and has been hitting ever since. He has posted a line of .323/.374/.404 while being a year too young for his level. He is proving he can stick at the catcher position which makes him all the more valuable, as does being a left-handed hitter with a bit of pedigree. 9. Randy Wells - AA (23) Wells has better numbers than Marmol did at West Tenn so far this season. Heck, he's got better numbers than Mark Prior did at West Tenn back in '02, but he needs to do what he is doing a little longer before I become a believer. Still, 4-2 with a ERA of 1.12 and a WHIP of 0.89 through 11 starts can't be overlooked. 10. Mitch Atkins - Low A (20) Mitch won't turn 21 until October, and he is dominating the MWL with a 6-1 record, 2.24 ERA and a WHIP of 1.08. Other names still to be ranked: Eric Patterson - AA (23), Juan Mateo - AA (23), Jake Fox - High A (23), Brian Dopirak - AA (22), Jae Kuk Ryu - AAA (23), Geovany Soto - AAA (23), Scott Taylor - Low A (19), Ryan Harvey - High A (21), Jonathon Mota - Low A (19), Jon Mueller - AAA (22), Scott Moore - AA (22), Dylan Johnston - Low A (19), Robinson Chirinos - Low A (22), Darin Downs - Short Season A (21), Nate Spears - High A (21), Grant Johnson - High A (23), Miguel Negron - AA (23), Billy Petrick - Inj. (22), Todd Blackford - Low A (21). Did I miss anyone? Have at it, Cubs fans...

Hmmm, lets see, next year Maddux will be gone. Wood will probably be gone. The Cubs could use a No. 3 starter! Somebody ask that scout when he thinks Sean will be ready...

And another perfectly awful day at the major league level. This is a recording. :DThat brought an audible chuckle. Good work, NCCF. As far as Gallagher is concerned, Fleita was right. He said he had a chance to move quickly through the system and whaddya know. If he is sitting between 91-94 regularly and touching the high 90s with his movement, control and poise, he could be the real deal. Oh boy, I hate that I just had this thought, but the letters HGH just popped into my head. I hate that baseball let the performance enhancing drug thing to get so out of control that now thoughts like that pop up when one of my favorite prospects gains velocity on his fastball. Forget about it. Until proven otherwise, he is doing it naturally. Anyway, congrats Sean on a successful debut into AA!

So his point on this team is? Honestly, what is it? SOMEBODY TELL ME! None. He is just absolutley terrible right now. Send him to Iowa. If someone picks him up, fine. Its crazy to keep running him out there. He needs to fix what is wrong and he shouldn't be doing that on a big league pitcher's mound.

Its great that Sean is making his AA debut tonight. And at the same time, its sad that on June 16th it will be his performance that I am most interested in today and not the big league club's. Oy...

ugh...because i don't have to look at all the months. why? because his overall numbers were BAD, so the bad clearly outweighed the good. why is that so hard to understand? i just picked out a few to show how stupid it is to look at a season on a month by month basis. I'm not sure I follow your logic here, abuck. But, regardless, I have already agreed with you that it is stupid to look at it on a month to month basis and, furthermore, I wasn't doing that. I was looking at the fact that his '05 season had three very distinct sections to it, (I must have said this like 6 times now) and that had he been consistently inconsistent all season long and wound up with the same numbers, I would chalk up '05 as a below average season and say that he really was only good during the '04 season. But, as we all know, that's not what happened. then why are his overall numbers so bad?????????? this is the most frustrating argument of all time. you continue to insist that his 2005 was equal parts bad and very good. yet a 4.50+ era and a 1.57 whip CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE BAD OUTWEIGHED THE GOOD (thus NOT 50% good, 50% bad). I think we are getting close here, abuck. I never said that in the 25% of the time he wasn't good that he was only kind of bad. No. I have said it over and over again, that in the 25% of the time that he was bad, he was absolutely terrible. I even totaled up how bad he was for everyone to see. 0-7, 8.03. If I were truly trying to pull the wool over your eyes about Fat Glen or as some people have wrongly interpreted "defend" him, why would I total up his worst performances and display them? Because how bad he was during that 25% doesn't change the fact that he was still quite good during the other 75% of the time he was with the Cubs prior to this season. Its just a fact. If you are willing to say that '04 was a good year which you are. And if you are willing to acknowledge that he was really effective about half the time in '05. And if you are willing to acknowledge that those are the only two seasons he has pitched with the Cubs prior to this season, then... I never said that that added up to him being a good pitcher. Just that he has had quite a bit of time over the last two seasons where he was pitching effectively, which we have since agreed upon, and that he might be able to right the ship long enough for the Cubs to package him in a deal and get some other team to take him. That statement, though factually accurate, brought a pretty big reaction. I understand that people are frustrated with him right now. So am I. The way he is going I don't want to see him pitch for the Cubs ever again. But it doesn't mean that when someone makes a statement that is factually accurate that we shouldn't acknowledge it. Thats how stupid this thread and conversation is. It started over a completely inconsequential comment I made about hopefully Rusch being able to be worth something so that Cubs wouldn't have to cut him and get nothing in return. I said it not in defense of him or to excuse how poorly he is pitching now or to say that the Cubs should have faith in him and hang on. Nope. I said it to show that he has a chance at righting the ship in time to trade him. Not a really good chance, just a chance. I would like to see the Cubs not have to suffer his suckiness without getting something in return. That would be a double loss. Some people in this thread have recognized that that was all I was saying and gone, oh, so what's the big deal. And I've agreed with them. There is no big deal. I'm just not backing down because 1+1 still equals 2.

Me too, but inevitably I open the thread and experience more pain than just that of knowing Fat Glen's still with us. And now the nominees for the "Weirdest of Defense of Suck" Award: - Defending Glendon Rusch in "Rusch Split" - Defending strikeouts in "Strikeouts" - Defending Dusty Baker in "That one dude's signature that says 'Keep up the Good Work Dusty' or something like that" Who is defending Glendon Rusch? I'm simply stating what's so about him as reflected by fact. I'm not saying that any of it means that he is a pitcher worth building around or something.

We don't. The points I was making weren't very controversial in my opinion, but some people thought I was saying things that were way out there. I was simply providing the reasoning behind what I thought was a very middle of the road and obvious statement and a few posters kept disagreeing. It was mind-boggling to me. Here's the problem...it wasn't middle of the road and obvious. Clearly. That's why I wrote that "I thought" it was middle of the road and others disagreed. Though, much of my experience has been that people are misunderstanding what I'm saying and disagreeing with things they think I'm saying. I keep having to write, "I never said that."

No crazier than saying he was terrible 3 years in a row, which he was, right? We all refer to it that way. I think you are just playing word games now. I've already gone back and clarified that I didn't mean 14 months of in season time. So can we let it go? I think this one question will help make things more clear. Say a pitcher pitches great (5-1, 2.07) over 61 IP for the first 2 1/2 months, then, for whatever reason, pitches terribly for the next 2 1/2 months (0-7, 8.03) over 52 2/3 IP, but then, for whatever reason, pitches consistently good again (4-0, 3.47) over 31 2/3 IP in the last month of the season. In effect, he had two distinct seasons. One in which he went 9-1, 2.53 over 92 2/3 IP and one where he was 0-7, 8.03 over 52 2/3 IP such that his final numbers were 9-8, 4.52 over 145 1/3 IP. It would be accurate to say he did not have a good year. However, and here's the question, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he was really good over half of the time and really bad the rest? This is about the 5th time I've said this, if Rusch had been average to below average consistently all year long, then I would call his numbers in 2005 bad and leave it at that. But he wasn't. Since the facts are different, the way I describe them will be too. If I'm interested in having an accurate opinion, that is. No, I look at your analysis and ask, "what kind of analysis is that?" You only looked at four of the six months of the season, why? You left out May and September, his two best months, in which Rusch went 6-1 with a 2.93 ERA over 64 1/3 IP. What kind of balanced analysis is that? I don't consider July '05 a good month. Do you? His ERA that month was 7.82. Why would I? I don't go by calendar months and decide what was a good month and what wasn't. I agree that would be silly and have said as much earlier in this thread. I look at when his effectiveness changed. He was really good from basically the start of the '05 season up until his start on June 12th and then oddly, he was ineffective for the most part until September. So that is roughly 2 1/2 months of great pitching (5-1, 2.07) followed by roughly 2 1/2 months of absolutely terrible pitching (0-7, 8.03). If he hadn't turned it around in September, I seriously doubt the Cubs consider resigning him, at least I hope they would. But he comes back and has 4 consistently strong starts to end the season winning all of them and compiling a very 2004-like ERA of 3.47. When you add up the time he was really good 3 months and a week basically to the time he was bad 2 months and 3 weeks basically, its about half and half. When you look at the innings pitched while he was effective its 92 2/3 IP to 52 2/3 IP while ineffective. That's 64% to 36%. That's where I got my numbers. Okay.

We don't. The points I was making weren't very controversial in my opinion, but some people thought I was saying things that were way out there. I was simply providing the reasoning behind what I thought was a very middle of the road and obvious statement and a few posters kept disagreeing. It was mind-boggling to me.

No, I do. I said he had a chance. I never said it was a good one. As I previously stated, I'm all for cutting him and making room. Obviously, the ideal situation is that he finds it again and we are able to get a little something for him in a package. And I think there is a chance that can happen. That's all. I certainly wouldn't be upset if he were cut tomorrow.

Let me know if you were referring to me, BBB. I thought I was clearly attacking the argument and not the poster, but I'm open to seeing it from another point of view.

All right. But the bottom line here is that the Cubs would be more than justified if they cut Rusch loose right now. I agree completely and have never said anything to suggest that they wouldn't. I was simply hoping that he might right the ship so that they could get something, anything for him instead of taking a complete loss. And that his most recent statistics while under the coaching of Larry Rothschild suggest that he has a chance of doing so.

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness. it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player. you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works. This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you? I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water. why would that be a joke? he's been terrible his entire career. therefore, when he has a short run of success, it seems logical to write it off as a run of good luck. or do you prefer to consider his 6-7 years of crap just a wacky turn of bad fortune? Well I thought it was a joke because otherwise it is incredibly insulting. I can see a guy with Rusch's past putting together a good month and chalking it up to luck, but not 14 months of very good to excellent performance. To say that a guy who has the talent and worked hard enough to make it to the big leagues would only have a year and a half of success because of luck is completely out of touch with reality. People don't have extended period of success at something that they have dedicated their life to succeeding at because of luck. They struggle and fail and struggle and fail and then, one day, they figure it out unless, of course it is only for a few weeks. Or if it is inconsistent, up and down all year long. But that simply doesn't accurately describe how Rusch had performed for the Cubs heading into this season. Does it? Do you know what it is like to compete with the best in the world at something? To do what it takes to succeed at that level? Luck? No offense, but that has to be the most out of touch with reality notion I've heard in a long time on this board. In the context of nearly 10 seasons, 14 months is statistically insignificant. just under 10 total seasons, about 55 months. 14 good months equates to a percentage of 25-26%. That percentage may make a decent batting average, but for a pitcher it isn't acceptable. And if you are referring to his 14 months with the Cubs, 7 have been very good, 2 mediocre, and 5 abysmal. About 50/50. Not good. And his very bad stretches have been more extreme than his good stretches. Insulting or not, what abuck said was dead on accurate. Glendon has been in the league long enough to get an accurate read on him, to know what you can expect and what is anomaly. His decent stretches have been anomalous, there is not logical or empirical argument to the contrary, no matter how you try and spin it. None of his failure can be regarded as "bad luck". Glendon has the talent to be in the majors, but just barely. And don't delude yourself by saying just because a player has had any degree of success it means they belong. The league is full of players whose 5 minutes of success have earned them a longer stay than they deserve. Few have managed to wear out their welcome as long as Glendon. 10 years the vast majority of them ranging from bad to abysmal. This isn't some kid who just needs to be given his shot. He has proven that he is not good. He has been up long enough for all the luck and ups and downs to play out. 10 seasons is longer than necessary for the law of averages to pass judgement on Rusch. Baseball is not about humanitarian and feel good notions about players. It's a business, and Rusch's stock is not good. Rusch has had an up and down career, but the valleys have been far deeper and longer than the peaks have been high. His stuff is marginal. His numbers are terrible, and getting worse with every trip he takes to the mound. How much time should his good 2004 buy him? He latest bad stretch has already been nearly as long as the sum total of his good stretches. And don't say he was decent last year, he wasn't. A WHIP of over 1.5 is BAD. Go ahead and bring up Schmidt again. He has had a very good career, and has earned the benefit of the doubt. Rusch hasn't. We can eliminate the pitchers withless that 150 inning because most of the were either demoted or cut loose, while Glendon kept getting his undeserved shots. If you are determined to defend Glendon, go ahead. But your argument is totally flawed, more sentiment than logic. I think you think my argument is something that it is not. abuck is defining Rusch's time with the Cubs prior to this season as terrible. And I'm saying it is statistically accurate to say that he was "good" roughly 75% of the time coming into this season. That doesn't make him a good pitcher overall, and I never said that he was. If want to agree with abuck that Rusch's success over the previous two seasons is simply due to luck and not a baseball player's intention, hard work and dedication, be my guest. I think it is completely accurate to say that the reason why Rusch has failed as much as he has in his career is because he isn't as talented as most. He certainly wasn't as the power pitcher he was trying to be when he first came up. He found some success when he came to the Cubs as a finesse/control pitcher. But he ran into trouble in his second season and has totally lost it in his third. I think we believe the same things about his career has a whole. I just don't think anyone's sustained success at an elite level can accurately be chalked up to luck. Can you? What I did say was that if a pitcher the age Rusch was coming into the 2004 season suddenly gets with the right coach or fine tunes his control or whatever it is and turns things around on a consistent basis for a full season and then the first two months plus of the next, there is reason to believe that he might be able to do it again and isn't doomed to be a "terrible" pitcher for the rest of his career. I never said that I thought it was likely that he would turn his season or his career around. Only that his recent past showed that it was possible for him to right the ship before the trade deadline in hopes that maybe the Cubs could dump him off on somebody. So much of your argument I agree with, but it wasn't countering what I was saying.

Ah, finally! The intelligent and fact filled thesis I've been waiting for...

Exactly what I am saying. He sucks right now.