The Other 15

Nope. Check it out for yourself... you'll have to cut and paste this link. http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=pitching&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=der&direction=DESC&qual_filter=ignore&season_filter[]=2008&league_filter[]=2&team_filter[]=FLA&Submit=Submit I'm confused again. That site says that Florida, with 116 throwing and fielding errors, was second only to Washington in committing the most errors in the NL. How does that help the argument that Gregg was the recipient of a good defense? For the record, errors don't mean jack squat. What I had that link set up to display was defensive efficiency... which is a measure of how often the defense turns a ball in play into an out... which is what we're looking for... not whether they committed "errors". And what you're seeing is that Gregg benefited disproportionately from his defensive unit (which BP has ranked just a tick above the middle of the pack... 13th overall). They turned 75.3% of the balls in play into outs with him on the mound, but only about 69.3% on the average. So that's it then, the DER is what matters? I see he also has a similar DER in 2007. Amazingly, they just field better for him. The pitcher has nothing to do with this? Are Harden (.790 DER) and Marmol (.831) just lucky too because the defense seems to play better for them? Or does how they pitch have something to do with what kind of balls are put in play? I find it odd that Gregg, Pinto, Volsted, Olson, Nelson, and Nolasco, all pitchers with decent DER numbers (and coincidently better LD% than the rest of the staff) were simply the beneficiaries of a good defense playing over its head just for them. I completely disagree that one sole stat like DER is the tell all about a pitchers performance if three stats like BAA, OBP and SLG are just random as I've been told. And in 2004 Gregg ranked 11th out of 16 Angels pitchers. And in 2005 Gregg ranked 15th out of 18 Angels pitchers. And in 2006 Gregg ranked 15th out of 18 Angels pitchers. You say Gregg has just figured it out. I say his defense is doing him some favors the last couple years. I'm not calling DER the one telling stat for pitchers. It's telling of team defense, and that's about it. His strikeout rate, walk rate, groundball tendencies, and other peripherals are much more important (read: stable) than junk like hit rate (which is why BAA, OBA, and SLG are less useful). DER was simply a tool to help prove that there's a whole bunch of sway in hit rate (without resorting to arbitrary scoring decisions like calling errors). "You say Gregg has just figured it out. I say his defense is doing him some favors the last couple years." Therein lies the foundation of our differences on this topic. I'll not dispute that his defense may be doing him "some favors", but it doesn't make sense that his defense is entirely responsible for his numbers the last two seasons. Which is something (even if you're not trying to convey) that comes across as your opinion. One guy (Tim) makes a point that the K/BB ratio and GB% are a important indicators (which I agree), you are pointing to the team defense (which I also agree plays a factor), and I'm pointing out that there are obviously more reasons (some spreadsheet related and some not) why pitchers get good results. This was interesting, you made a good point, and you didn't apply the predictable "ugh, you just don't get it!" that people who enjoy using many different splits often do into our discussion. That's much appreciated.

Nope. Check it out for yourself... you'll have to cut and paste this link. http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=pitching&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=der&direction=DESC&qual_filter=ignore&season_filter[]=2008&league_filter[]=2&team_filter[]=FLA&Submit=Submit I'm confused again. That site says that Florida, with 116 throwing and fielding errors, was second only to Washington in committing the most errors in the NL. How does that help the argument that Gregg was the recipient of a good defense? For the record, errors don't mean jack squat. What I had that link set up to display was defensive efficiency... which is a measure of how often the defense turns a ball in play into an out... which is what we're looking for... not whether they committed "errors". And what you're seeing is that Gregg benefited disproportionately from his defensive unit (which BP has ranked just a tick above the middle of the pack... 13th overall). They turned 75.3% of the balls in play into outs with him on the mound, but only about 69.3% on the average. So that's it then, the DER is what matters? I see he also has a similar DER in 2007. Amazingly, they just field better for him. The pitcher has nothing to do with this? Are Harden (.790 DER) and Marmol (.831) just lucky too because the defense seems to play better for them? Or does how they pitch have something to do with what kind of balls are put in play? I find it odd that Gregg, Pinto, Volsted, Olson, Nelson, and Nolasco, all pitchers with decent DER numbers (and coincidently better LD% than the rest of the staff) were simply the beneficiaries of a good defense playing over its head just for them. I completely disagree that one sole stat like DER is the tell all about a pitchers performance if three stats like BAA, OBP and SLG are just random as I've been told.

Nope. Check it out for yourself... you'll have to cut and paste this link. http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=pitching&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=der&direction=DESC&qual_filter=ignore&season_filter[]=2008&league_filter[]=2&team_filter[]=FLA&Submit=Submit I'm confused again. That site says that Florida, with 116 throwing and fielding errors, was second only to Washington in committing the most errors in the NL. How does that help the argument that Gregg was the recipient of a good defense?

Haven't the Marlins been very erratic with their infield defense over the last couple of seasons? Calling them erratic could possibly be complimentary to how they actually played defense in general. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but do they only play good defense when Gregg pitched?

Woody and Hendry are very close. Hendry would help Wood in any way possible. Let's go back to the month long blister for a second. First, let's remember how Woody healed his rotator cuff - with rest, not surgery. Go forward to the blister again. Could it be that the "blister" was the rotator cuff flaring up and the Cubs rested him so that Hendry can help his guy Woody get a multi-year deal elsewhere in the offseason without Wood losing value by missing time to shoulder related problems rather than a harmless, unlucky, blister?

Any chance that Peavy is holding Towers hostage by privately informing him that he only wants to play for the Cubs and this is Towers' dance to try to get as much as possible from Hendry?

Relievers don't have all that much control over their triple slash stats. Look at Brad Lidge... his peripherals stayed pretty constant, but luck has made his numbers jump all over the place. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/stats/players/index.php?lastName=lidge So, even indicators like K/BB rate and GB % aren't good enough because in the Lidge example you posted, his K/BB ratio and GB % has been about the same over the last 4 years yet his SLGA has been .323, .408, .409, and .269? Conversely, when Gregg's GB% and K/BB ratio were better, he posted much worse slash splits. Is it fair to say that we really don't know what will happen and can only go by what has happened?

The argument is based on which stats a pitcher has some measure of control over and those that are far more subject to random variation or other impacts. The items meph was picking on are implied to be those that fall into the latter category. I can understand that repeating the same argument over and over can get tiresome...but meph does need to learn to either let the statement go unchallenged or say more than he does. I know I've been guilty of the same type of thing in the past, but he has a well deserved reputation for taking that shortcut way too often. Which, if any, of BAA, OBP, SLG can be found in the former? All three of those stats are indirectly influenced by the items under a pitcher's control. But you're better off looking at things like strikeout rate, walk rate, ground ball percentage that are under more direct control. From these items you can calculate an expected BAA, OBP, SLG that are more predictive of future triple slash stats than historic slash stats (ba, obp, slg). Ok, thanks. Then what do we make or Gregg's situation where his K rate went down, his BB rate went up, and his GB rate went drastically down over the last couple of years, yet he was still able to post those semi impressive numbers that I stated earlier? Just lucky? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know.

pretty decent does not excite me. Mike Wuertz has been pretty decent for years and the Cubs keep screwing around with him. Fair enough, but that's more of an issue with Lou's use of Wuertz than Gregg's performance. I don't know where Gregg stands in relation to other relievers using BAA, OBP, SLG. But I would guess it's in the upper third, which makes him "alright" (a fair assessment).

The argument is based on which stats a pitcher has some measure of control over and those that are far more subject to random variation or other impacts. The items meph was picking on are implied to be those that fall into the latter category. I can understand that repeating the same argument over and over can get tiresome...but meph does need to learn to either let the statement go unchallenged or say more than he does. I know I've been guilty of the same type of thing in the past, but he has a well deserved reputation for taking that shortcut way too often. Which, if any, of BAA, OBP, SLG can be found in the former?

I don't understand your arguement in favor of Gregg, none of his numbers are exciting. I'm really not making an argument in favor of Gregg, just stating some facts. However, BAA in the low .200's, OBP in the low .300's, and SLG in the low .300's is pretty decent, no?

I want to make it clear that I'm not looking to start some thread consuming flame war between any posters here. I'm also not looking to justify the trade. I know there are always many intangibles to consider when a vet and a AA prospect are involved that peoples opinions of these type of trades often get very polarized. However, if a pitcher doesn't allow many runners to reach, doesn't allow many hits, and when he does, the hits often are not big ones, I find it hard to understand how that can be so easily dismissed unimportant. Afterall, besides allowing runs, that is the goal of any pitcher, isn't it?

I don't know if this some kind of message board persona thing going on or what, but you've followed a couple of my posts with very vague arguments. Things like, "that's not important" really doesn't help me get your point. In a previous thread about Fukudome/Iwamura you did the same thing, and it was only after a couple of regulars called you out for being rude that you posted a very compelling argument. Will it have to be like that every time?

Everyone will use the information available in any way they see fit. But it doesn't change the fact that over the last 2 years Gregg has been difficult to reach base against, even tougher to get a hit against, and has given up a low SLG %. Somewhere in there has to be some positive information that is not just random pickings.

I have not sifted through the previous 20 pages so forgive me if someone posted something similar. Gregg's last 2 years: IP 68.2, 84 ERA 3.41, 3.54 SAVES 61 SV/OPPs 74 (83%) WHIP 1.28, 1.23 SLG .271, .317 OBA .314, 310 BAA .203, 206 H9 6.68, 6.75 Pitches/IP 13.23, 13.32 His day game numbers: 2008 - 0.82 ERA, 1.00 WHIP, .149 BAA 2007 - 4.05 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, .202 BAA His Road splits over last 2 years: 2008 - 3.48 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, .191 BAA 2007 - 3.11 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, .190 BAA Granted, there are some numbers that make you cringe a bit (GO/AO ratio, BB9, decreasing K/9) but overall, just by his performance over the last two years he's not been bad. He doesn't give up many hits (H/9, BAA), when they hit it, they don't hit it far (SLG), and he doesn't let many get on base. I don't know how much their defense let him down, but I would have to imagine it didn't help.

They'll probably over spend on some one and find out that McClung is their best one inning guy sometime after that investments is hurting.

Ibanez was terrible defensively, almost completely negating his bat. Wow, that's one hell of a bad glove seeing how Ibanez's bat is responsible for roughly scoring and driving in about 200 runs. I'm not going to defend his defense, but maybe some people are getting carried away? Just a little?

Wilkins had a series of nagging injuries (I wanna say shoulder and knee) after that monster 1993 season. I think that led to the trade for Louis Gozalez and Scott Servais. He was pretty good behind the plate because he was known for a strong arm. Too bad the needle in the ass era hadn't spread across all of baseball by then because Gonzo and Sammy would have made a nice Right/Left middle of the order.

Can't recall where I read it, but I think that Ibanez is 4th in RBI's over the last 3 seasons behind Howard, Arod, and Pujols.

DENVER (AP)—Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban remains as interested as ever in buying the Chicago Cubs, dismissing a report that Major League Baseball might not want him as an owner. According to a Chicago Sun-Times report that cited a baseball source, there was “zero chance” of Cuban taking over the From yahoo: Cubs. The Sun-Times source said the Internet billionaire would meet with resistance in trying to get approval from Major League Baseball. Cuban wouldn’t comment on the report before the Mavericks played Denver on Friday night. “There’s no reason to comment on anonymous comments from unsolicited sources. I mean it’s ridiculous,” Cuban said. Cuban is in the running to purchase the team from the Tribune Co. after reportedly bidding more than $1 billion. Others believed to be interested are a group headed by John Canning, chairman of private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners LLC; and the family of online brokerage Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts. “Nothing’s changed,” Cuban said. “I mean it’s a great opportunity.”

You also have to factor in the Cards might be leery of his ability to: 1. produce that type of season again and 2. stay healthy with his injury history. Based on track record, I would tend to side with them being cautious with him rather than banking on another .300-30-100 season from him. Injuries could be a legit concern. But the rumors to Colorado for Holliday make more sense than Kelly Johnson. By the way, .385/.478/1.350 line for Holliday at new Bush.

I think you misinterpreted my use of balance. I meant that insted of getting 30 HR out of one spot and 5 out of another, they may get 20 out of one and 15 out of the other, creating better balance throughout the lineup. Plus you'll have 2 spots with solid OBP instead of one good one and the other that is just meh. Alright, I see what you meant. I still disagree only because Ludwick looks like he can be a prodigious producer over the next few years and Kelly Johson is a nice player but not great. That's not good enough for me to replace a guy that has shown he can produce behind Albert which is a must in that offense. They need a 2B bad, but they need a SS more. They had a pretty good offense despite getting very little from SS and 2B. There's got to be a better way to address those spots than giving away a player that emerged as a legitimate producer. The Cardinals had Adam Kennedy(and other assorted garbage) playing 2B last year. Kelly Johnson would be a massive upgrade. That's not at issue. Is the "upgrade" over Kennedy (and the rest) worth trading a guy that had a massive season and is 30 years old? That's a tricky one. I would guess they wouldn't want to start Skip Schumaker in a corner spot again. Trading Ludwick, would do just that. That's not so tricky.

By being more balanced. If they get the production they think they can out of Rasmus and add in Johnson's numbers, you probably end up with a little more production overall plus you've added 2 guys in front of Pujols who are expected to get on base at a pretty good clip. Sorry, I disagree that the minimal gain you get with Kelly Johnson playing over anything they already had playing 2B makes them a better offense simply because they added a LH hitter. Ludwicks production can't be overlooked when you consider how many times teams pitched around Albert. But, as a Cub fan, I'm all for them making that deal.

Range is not a high priority at Wrigley. Understanding where you are in relation to those brick walls and a strong arm makes you very adequate at Wrigley in both LF and RF.

I saw those rumors too. I'm not sure how one of the best offenses in the NL gets better if it replaces Ludwick with Johnson.