Have the Cubs improved?

[cwolf2012]

"If Bradley plays 125 games and Marmol is healthy, there's no team in this division that's within a dozen games of the Cubs."

 

----------------------------

 

I don't agree. Although I'm pretty sure it was hyperbole, them being a dozen games better than the next team means you think that the cubs will win something like 95-100 games, and no one else in the Central will win more than 85. I think it's a pretty difficult argument to make that the Cubs will be as good as they were last year on offense. Bradley was a good addition, but Edmonds carried an OPS of .937 with the cubs, and played a more premier position. Bradley will be mediocre on defense and is unlikely to top that production. As has been said, pretty much everyone in the infield was above career BABIP. The offense will still be good for them, but not as good as last year. Their defense will also be worse.

 

It's also pretty tough to think they'll be better on pitching with Dempster highly unlikely to repeat last year, Z getting worn down, and Harden being made of glass. Also, Kerry Wood was absolutely lights out for them. Kevin Gregg has to be at least a win or two worse than Wood.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Last year's Minnesota Twins are what I keep looking at for giving us hope. A team that lost Johan Santana, Matt Garza, and Torii Hunter still contended, although they got very lucky in the process. So with a little luck, the Brewers could be back in the playoffs.

[Thurston Fluff]

I've asked this before but why do people keep saying Zambrono is getting worn down or is injury prone? Granted he had a slight injury last season but one season with one injury is not a trend. Is there any reason to think he really isn't going to be his usual workhorse self other than wishful thinking?

[endaround]

Because his isn't as good as people claim he is. His FIP the last two seasons were 4.58 and 4.23. That's not what most would consider #1 type numbers. He's likely to be slightly worse than last year with a worse defense behind him.

[Thurston Fluff]

How does him not being as good as people think relate to wearing down? I agree he is overrated but not injury prone or wearing down.

[strawbossisevil]

And I've shown you Briggs in the other thread, that even the best hitters in baseball, generally hover around the .300 mark in BABIP. You have yet to show me someone who can consistently hit with a BABIP in the .350s. The truth is you won't find said player, because said player doesn't exist. I think its possible, that someone could sustain a BABIP in possibly the .320s if they are really good at using the whole field as you suggest.

 

But as others have pointed out, did all of these players just learn this all fields skill in this past year? Theriot for example, had his BABIP below .300 the previous season. Are we then to assume that he improved his ability to hit to all fields that drastically? The answer of course is "no".

 

Like Russ, pointed out in the Peavy thread. Someone having a .350 BABIP is like a guy with 40 HR talent hitting 70 HR. When you make expectations for that player in the following season, you don't expect him to hit 70 HRs again, it's possible he does, but it isn't likely. It would be much more likely to expect the guy to hit around 40-50 HR.

 

Just because a stat doesn't fit with your pessimistic way of approaching things, doesn't make it an invaluable stat. The point is to take all subjectivity out and look at things objectively, and looking objectively at the stats the Cubs put up last season they overachieved by quite a stretch on offense and in the starting rotation.

 

And saying that it comes down to two guys. One who may pitch only 50-70 innings, and another who benefited from an BABIP in the .390s in the previous season (come on, even you have to admit it is unlikely he repeats that) is just ridiculous in my mind.

[endaround]

Because he was better before 2007. His FIP was sub 4 2003-2005. He's been getting worse since then. The point is he hasn't really been an "ace" since really 2005 with 2006 being really close. Again he hast been far from terrible but he's been declining from his peak.

 

As for what the Cubs really need to happen is for Fukudome to find a some power in order to replace DeRosa.

[jjfanec]

JohnBriggs12 wrote:

Even if a starter or two go down, they will have more than enough offense with a healthy Bradley to bludgeon opponents.

Prince > Lee

Weeks = Miles/Fontenot

Hardy > Theriot

Ramirez >> Hall/Lamb

Bradley > Hart

Cameron > Johnson

Braun > Soriano

Soto >> Kendall

 

The offenses do not look that different heading into next year for these two team so why are the Cubs in good shape to lose one or two starters but the Brewers desperately need to add pitching. The Cubs are average or below at 2B, SS, CF. Even Derrek Lee was only 9 out of 11 in OPS for 1B in the NL. I really do not think they have an offense that can withstand 2 of their starters going out especially with the lack of depth they have in the rotation.

 

Also you disregard BAbip which you just cannot do. Sure BABIP could be used incorrectly. There are some guys who have proven that they can sustain a high BABIP over thier careers but the Cubs players being looked at have not shown that. In 2007 Theriot had an .50 points lower than last year. That is a huge difference. Reed Johnson had a BABIP of .360 for his career it is closer to .330, although he did have one year at .360. The people using BABIP in play to show that the Cubs regress a bit on offense are the same people who said Braun's numbers would regress last year and that Kendall's first half numbers were somewhat of a fluke due to the same stat. The stat when used correctly really does point to reasonable projections.

 

I also laugh at the idea that Cubs players have high BABIP in play because they know how to put good wood on the ball. I watched Theriot hit the ball at a lot last year and good wood is not a good word for his hitting. He looks a lot like Kendall to me and when his bloops and slow rollers do not find green grass his numbers drop just like in 2007.

[Thurston Fluff]

Endaround I apologize for being so obtuse but does a decline from peak automatically mean wearing down or injury prone? Couldn't it also just mean he wasn't as good as those few years suggested he was? Maybe it's just semantics but to me wearing down means injury or complete loss of production due to age. He's not that old and hasn't really has much of an injury history.

[strawbossisevil]

If it isn't wearing down, what is it?

 

He was an "ace" type pitcher from 2002-2005.

 

As you pointed out, he isn't that old. So what has caused all of his numbers to significantly drop over these past few seasons? His K/9 has dropped substantially. What is it if it isn't the wear and tear of being abused year after year?

[Tbadder]

I think we're splitting hairs. The easy answer (I realize that's a loaded word) is that the Cubs are probably worse in the pitching department because of Harden's injury (I don't think there's that much difference between Woods and Gregg--in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Gregg ended up with more saves) but their hitting should be better with Bradley. Seems like a wash. The Brewers pitching should be worse, the hitting should be better. Seems like a wash. I believe the division will come down to three things:

 

1) The Brewers bullpen. Will the starters use it up or keep it fresh. Fresh=82 wins, Blown out=75 wins.

2) Cub injuries. They could be awash in them. Healthy=96 wins, decimated 85 wins

3) The Reds. I agree with whoever posted about the Red Menace. They are waiting to happen. I think their young talent is better than ours.

[Ennder]

How does him not being as good as people think relate to wearing down? I agree he is overrated but not injury prone or wearing down.

His arm slot has dropped the last two years which is something usually caused by an injury or tired arm. He fits the profile of the 'horse' who wears out young like a Livan Hernandez type as well so people (myself included) tend to read even more into his numbers because of that.

[cwolf2012]

To give you an idea of why I say he's wearing down:

 

He was 26 and 27 years old in 2007 and 2008. The average peak years in baseball are 27-29, so before that, you should be getting better. But due to his ridiculously high workloads, he's already showing symptoms of decline, especially in the last two years. Here's the breakdown of his Pitcher Abuse Points rank in the last 6 years:

 

03: 11th

04: 3rd

05: 2nd

06: 2nd

07: 2nd

08: 7th

 

He's been WAY overworked, and as such, is starting to decline at an age when most players peak. That's what we mean when we say Z is wearing down.

[Thurston Fluff]

Thanks ennder and cwolf. All I was looking for was a reason to actually think that was going on vs what seemed to me to be wishful thinking. Those are good enough things for me to think there is merit to that belief.

[Fatter than Joey]

You have yet to show me someone who can consistently hit with a BABIP in the .350s. The truth is you won't find said player, because said player doesn't exist

 

False. Ichiro has a career .356 BABip. I am sure there are plenty of others. Your claims seem unsubstantiated.

 

that even the best hitters in baseball, generally hover around the .300 mark in BABIP.

 

This is irrelevant, and where I think you continue to trip up...

 

Simply put.

 

For pitchers -- Pitchers regress towards a league average BABip

For Batters -- Batters regress towards their own unique number.

 

So in the case of Theriot -- given the fact he has only played 2 full seasons, I think it is a bit presumptuous that we should know what sort of BABip to expect from Theriot given

the smallish data size.

 

I think a lot of people are using BABip incorrectly as a projection tool as well... BABip does not correlate to Runs very well -- certainly much less than say OPS -- which correlates to runs really well.

 

So it the case of Straw's argument, I do not think it is at all reasonable to conclude that a rise or drop in BABip is going to necessarily correlate in a rise or drop in runs.

 

So if you wanted to say Theriot's BABip is likely to drop in 2009 -- I'd say "so what".

 

Theriot had a .746 OPS last year -- good enough for 8th among NL SS's. I think the better question is to ask whether Theriot can maintain a .746 OPS... I don't see any reason why he couldn't produce a .746 OPS again this year -- or something around that number. If you think Theriot is going to produce a .669 OPS -- then I think you can make a strong case that the Cubs are going to get less runs out of Theriot's ABs in 2009... otherwise I think you are grasping.

[jjfanec]

(I don't think there's that much difference between Woods and Gregg--in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Gregg ended up with more saves)

I think Gregg ending up with more saves that Wood would be a near impossibility or it would need at least a severe Carlos Marmol injury. They have said Marmol will close and Gregg will be the set up guy. To me this hurts them because Marmol was so valuable in his previous role and I think he loses some value at the new spot.

[TooLiveBrew]

They have said Marmol will close and Gregg will be the set up guy. To me this hurts them because Marmol was so valuable in his previous role and I think he loses some value at the new spot.

 

And in addition to not being able to use Marmol in a more flexible & therefore valuable role, the guy that will be assuming said role is not as good a pitcher as Marmol (or Wood). Their bullpen has a chance to be significantly worse than last season.

[strawbossisevil]

I stand corrected FTJ.

 

I should have made the point than that most of the Cubs players had BABIP well above their career averages. Would that be a valid enough point for you?

 

On top of that, very few hitters are able to do what Ichiro does, but I'll admit that it does show that there are those who can consistently supercede the league average number. Those players though are few, and very far between and there is no proof that Theriot is one of those players (as we have a two year sample, one which says he definitely isn't, and the other that suggests its possible that he is).

 

Also saying the same shortcomings don't apply to pitching is a bit off too. Depending on where a pitcher puts the ball, he can to an extent control how well a ball is hit. I would guess there are pitchers out there who year in and year out are better than league average. Greg Maddox is an example, as during his prime he floated between .250 and .270.

 

The point is, BABIP is a valid predictive tool for both batters and pitchers when we don't have a whole lot of history to know where their averages might fall. Theriot is a perfect example, he's played for two years, and has had one below average BABIP year, and one above average BABIP year. Because we only have a two year sample, we can use the league average to make a much more likely guess as to where he'll be (as the overwhelming majority of MLB hitters hover around that mark with only a few exceptions). In this case, he is most likely worse than last season.

 

And to say that this doesn't apply at all to wins is a bit bogus too, especially if we are talking about a player like Theriot. He got on base, if I remember correctly about 39% of the time last season, and since he has no power to speak of, much of that OBP came because he got basehits. Now, let's say that he falls more in line with league average for BABIP just for arguments sake. If he still walked at the same rate, his OBP (one of the biggest components of OPS) would drop to about .340. His slugging would also drop as not getting hits would lead to a drop in slugging. So in order for him to put up a similar OPS, he would have to start slugging a lot more in the hits that he would get (AKA significantly more HRs), something that it doesn't appear he is capable of doing.

 

But tell you what FTJ and Briggs. If Theriot equals or improves on his BABIP this next season, I'll buy you a beer. If he doesn't you buy me a beer. Deal?

[Thurston Fluff]

Their bullpen has a chance to be significantly worse than last season.

 

While true given the volatility of relievers in general the same could be said of every bullpen. I think a more relevant fact is they got a little lucky that Wood did have a good and, more importantly injury free, year than if another reliever can replicate what he did last year.

[Ennder]

I'd say Ichiro is a pretty unique case with BABIP. Most players hover between .280 and .320. When you get outside of that range and don't have a lot of data you make an assumption that you'll regress towards that range. If you have 3 years of data it is much safer to regress towards your career rates though. In general groundballs have a higher BABIP and flyballs a lower one so the type of hitter matters a lot. Some parks really inflate it too like Coors.

 

Manny has a career .339 BABIP which is the highest I've seen from someone who isn't fast, though I haven't researched it at all so I'm sure there are others. Pujols has a career .319, Bonds had a .285. Ted Williams a .317. Pete Rose a .319. Tony Gwynn a .341.

 

I'd be surprised if you can't count the number of players in modern baseball that are over.340 BABIP career on two hands to be honest. Very few sit over .320.

 

Now for Theriot if his BABIP drops 20 points it means his average drops which means his OBP and SLG drops which means his OPS drops. My guess is he is more of a .280 hitter and a low .700 OPS type player like a david eckstein.

[Fatter than Joey]

I should have made the point than that most of the Cubs players had BABIP well above their career averages. Would that be a valid enough point for you?

 

For players with enough data -- yes -- for Theriot in particular, no.

 

Depending on where a pitcher puts the ball, he can to an extent control how well a ball is hit.

 

There are some -- but very few -- pitchers that have extreme BABips consistently --

 

The point is, BABIP is a valid predictive tool for both batters and pitchers when we don't have a whole lot of history to know where their averages might fall.

 

No it is not. BABIP is NOT a good predictive tool for Runs -- OPS is MUCH better. OPS correlates to runs I think as well as anything except perhaps RC/27. Simply put,

BABip does not correlate well to runs.

 

as the overwhelming majority of MLB hitters hover around that mark with only a few exceptions

 

I do not believe this to be at all true -- for pitchers I agree, for batters I do not.

 

And to say that this doesn't apply at all to wins is a bit bogus too,...., something that it doesn't appear he is capable of doing.

 

I didn't read your paragraph very close -- I would just take Theriot's CHONE projection (or another projection), and look at OPS, and compare it his 2008 OPS of .746. If his 2009 OPS projects higher -- I would say that regardless of BABip, Theriot will probably do as well or better than he did in 2008, if his 2009 OPS projects to a .670 then I would say you have a good argument that the Cubs will lose runs in Theriot's spot.

 

It is a fact that OPS correlates to runs much better than BABip.

 

But tell you what FTJ and Briggs. If Theriot equals or improves on his BABIP this next season, I'll buy you a beer. If he doesn't you buy me a beer. Deal?

 

I will gladly give you one of my Homer wedding beers in either case... I don't think Theriot will increase his BABip next year -- however I don't think that is entirely relevant either. If you tell me his OPS is going to drop, then I will listen -- not so much for BABIP.

 

If you want to shut me up -- Find a 2009 CHONE or other OPS projection for Theriot, and compare it to 2008. If they project his OPS much less than .746 -- I will concede the point.

[Fatter than Joey]

Here are some projections I found for Theriot's OPS

 

Marcel .725

Bill James .728

Zips .705

Cairo .721

Chone .723

 

I think is a much more compelling argument to expect a decrease in Theriot's 2009 projections -- I just don't think it is as near as extreme as the .350 BABip is leading you to believe.

[Ennder]

http://www.fangraphs.com/...erid=3811&position=SS

 

James has him at .728, CHONE at .723, Marcel at .732, Oliver at .695.

 

My personal projection would be .715 for what it is worth.

 

I don't think he ever said BABIP correlates to runs better than anything else, he simply said if the teams BABIP all drop and the rest of their numbers stay the same the team will score fewer runs. If this happens it means their AVG will drop which means their OPS will drop.

 

Pitchers most certainly do control their own BABIP though, just like hitters do. It mostly depends on how much movement they have, what type of pitches they throw and whether they are a GB or FB pitcher. Nolan Ryan as an example had a career .275 BABIP against.

[strawbossisevil]

Yes, OPS correlates much closer to runs than BABIP. But BABIP is closely tied to OPS. Let me go through this one more time (although I think Ender and I both tried to cover this).

 

Let's say we have Theriot. Who had a BABIP of .350 in one season. He has had a short career, with one season of below average BABIP and one with the .350 mark.

 

Now let's just say for arguments sake, that his true ability lies around a .300 BABIP. Let's see what happens to his OPS when he goes from a .350 BABIP to a .300 BABIP without him adding any additional power.

 

His Batting average was .310, his OBP is .390 and his SLG is .360. (round numbers to make this simpler to understand and explain)

 

Now. Let's see what happens when his BABIP goes from .350 to .300.

 

His batting average drops from .310 to .260.

 

His OBP drops from .390 to .340.

 

And his SLG drops from .360 to about .310 (using Theriot's power number from last season, it actually came out to .306, but I'll be generous).

 

If that happens, if he doesn't hit for more power in his ABs than he did the previous season. His OPS would be .650.

 

Now I'm not even saying that is what I expect from him next season. But I don't expect anything much higher than .700 OPS tops, unless he is one of those special players who can consistently have a BABIP higher than the majority of the major league hitters.

 

BABIP does have a large effect on what a person's OPS is, and thus is useful for determining what a person's OPS will likely be for the next season. Once we arrive at this expected OPS, we can then see how it translates to wins. You want to ignore what is a major building block of OPS, but its important to know how a person got at that OPS before you can use it to make predictions on how a player will do in regards to wins.

[Fatter than Joey]

he simply said if the teams BABIP all drop and the rest of their numbers stay the same the team will score fewer runs.

 

I think it is pretty simplistic to hold every thing static except for BABIP.

 

If this happens it means their AVG will drop which means their OPS will drop.

 

Sure... and really, I am not arguing for or against Theriot's continued onslaught of NL pitching next year, rather that his inflated 2008 BABIP is not probably going to correlate well with a projected lack of production for 2009 -- and if it does, not to the degree a .070 swing in BABIP may lead one to believe.