Cubs-Brewers roster comparison

[Ennder]

Cubs had a similar thread earlier in the year and I posted on it. They seemed to be pretty level headed about it though I said that Sheets was as good as Zambrano and that Prince wasn't much behind Lee.

[Fatter than Joey]

I disagree with your 1st base assessment. I don't think Fielder is clearly better than Lee. Lee is a better average hitter and a better fielder, to boot. I call this even at best for the Brewers.

 

I agree 100% with this. The difference that may exist in OPS is probably more than made up for on the field in D. Lee makes a lot of plays Prince can't. Plus Lee gets on base much better.

[strawbossisevil]

Like I've mentioned before, those comparisons were offensive only. Offensively, Prince has been better than Lee this season. That's objectivity. Trying to add defense in the mix would make the list very subjective, plus that wasn't what the original poster asked for. He was saying that their offensive lineup was better, and that simply isn't the case.

 

Now starting pitching on the other hand, really swings in the Cubs favor. At least when you look at the pitchers ERA to this point in the season. Our relief pitching is better than theirs, however.

 

All in all, I think it is about a wash as far as current talent. Our offense is a little more capable, while our defense (which is somewhat reflected in our pitchers ERA, right?) and starting pitching are our biggest weaknesses.

[Fatter than Joey]

Offensively, Prince has been better than Lee this season. That's objectivity. Trying to add defense in the mix would make the list very subjective,

 

First -- I am not so sure that adding defense makes things subjective. I think by just about any metric/scouting -- Lee is a better defensive player than Fielder

 

Second -- I am not so sure that you can say Prince has been better offensively than Lee this year in an objective fashion -- Check this out.

 

Prince has a higher OPS than Lee, this is a fact.

 

In the same fashion, in July....

 

Brewers -- Cubs

OPS: .721 -- .691

HR: 29 -- 8

TB: 306 -- 261

 

So, using your methodology, the Brewers have had a better July than the Cubs? -- Not so fast..

 

Runs: 87 -- 100

wins: 9 -- 14

 

Please keep in mind that the Cubs have played in one less game, but have scored 13 more runs than the Brewers in July.

 

In a vacuum I would agree that the Brewers have had better offensive numbers, but I wouldn't be so quick to claim a higher OPS as objective as you may think.

 

Your method tends to look at the stats and the roster as individual parts-- My method tends to look at the roster as a sum, and is more focused on results. Is one better? Hard to say. I am just pointing out that your method is probably not as objective as you think.

 

There are a lot of data that OPS doesn't measure, perhaps Lee is a smarter/faster baserunner than Prince -- maybe he goes from 1st to 3rd on a single a lot more, making his contribution to the offense much better.

 

Maybe the Cubs make better outs than the Brewers, less DPs, hitting the ball behind the runners -- perhaps the Cubs overall are smarter and faster baserunners.

 

I tend to agree with Russ -- I think the Cubs and Brewers are pretty evenly matched.

[Ennder]

Yes because every 2 out AB with a runner on has been a hit for the Cubs lately, that is why they are on a hot streak pretty much. Meanwhile the Brewers can't buy a hit with RISP. Thats largely just random variance though, teams go through streaks where they can do no wrong or no right all the time.

[1992casey]

I think the teams are very evenly matched, too, and that attempting to debate the short-term advantage of Fielder vs. Lee is an illustration of that. I think you're going to have to work pretty hard to project which of those two guys is going to be more helpful over the next two-plus months.

[Fatter than Joey]

Thats largely just random variance though

 

Of course both you and I know that you cannot make this statement as if you know this to be true.

 

teams go through streaks where they can do no wrong or no right all the time

 

Maybe, this is mostly hand-waving though, and really irrelevant to my post.

 

Teams are also going to be better or worse at scoring/manufacturing runs. It is not as if all teams have equal attributes, and they are waiting for the coins to flip in their favor.

 

I think you're going to have to work pretty hard to prove which of those two guys is going to be more helpful over the next two-plus months.

 

This is more on line with what I am trying to say.

 

Strawboss took one approach -- segment by segment -- and broke down what he perceived to be favorable matchups for each roster -- he did a great job, and I have no issues with what he presented, other than I do not think it is as objective as he claimed. His analysis may end up be correct -- I just took issue with his claim of objectivity.

 

I think we are in for a dogfight. I would expect that the division lead could change hands a few times in the next few weeks.

 

Another interesting thought in this with regard to pitching -- I tend to agree that the Cubs BP is inferior to ours -- but they are getting more IP out of their starters, so perhaps it can be a bit worse. Our BP has pitched more innings so it better had be good.

[Ennder]

Quote:

---

Of course both you and I know that you cannot make this statement as if you know this to be true.

---

 

I think the fact that every single study ever done on the subject suggests that if clutch exists its at an extremely small level backs up my opinion on that. Quite simply sometimes the balls do or don't drop your way, thats baseball.

 

Earlier in the year the Cubs couldn't buy a base hit with RISP, did they just suddenly learn how to be clutch this past month? Does that really sound more plausible to you? Earlier in the season the Brewers were hitting very well with RISP, did we forget how to be clutch?

[Fear The Chorizo]

Soriano's been in a pretty prolonged slump, Fontenot has started to come back down to earth, Lee still hasn't shown that he can hit for power, Ramirez continues to collect bumps and bruisies to go along with his balky knee, Floyd runs around like he's 60, their catchers can't hit, Jones is their CF, Marmol looks human due to how often he's been pitching, and their 3-5 starters have been scuffling.

 

The Cubs have been winning, but friends of mine who are Cub fans (knowledgeable ones, actually) have watched them play - while they are thrilled that they got themselves back into contention for the division, they see the same ominous signs of a team that could be headed to being burned out.

 

I saw a graphic while watching the Cubs game last night - the Cubs have been the hottest team in baseball over the past 45 games. The yankees were a couple of games behind them. Who was the 4th hottest team in MLB during that same stretch? Milwaukee, with a record of 25-20.

 

The fact is that it's extremely rare for a division title to be wrapped up by early August - Brewer fans who thought they were entitled to coasting to a division title after waiting 25 years to see their team in the playoffs were obviously a bit too optimistic.

[Fatter than Joey]

I think the fact that every single study ever done on the subject suggests that if clutch exists its at an extremely small level backs up my opinion on that.

 

Most of those "studies" are not worth the paper they are written on, you will have to forgive me if I am quite skeptical about a lot of sabre-studies.

 

I have never mentioned "clutch" in any post I have ever made (I am pretty sure in any thread) -- the concept of clutch is your addition to this thread.

 

Quite simply sometimes the balls do or don't drop your way, thats baseball.

 

I really don't like it when you say "quite simply" -- I understand random variance. I also understand that there is a difference between the words "sometimes" and "in a large part". Furthermore I understand the idea that balls bounce in unpredictable manners -- Lastly I believe talent trumps that.

 

Earlier in the year the Cubs couldn't buy a base hit with RISP, did they just suddenly learn how to be clutch this past month? Does that really sound more plausible to you?

 

Honestly, it doesn't sound any less plausible than "due in a large part to random variance"

 

Let's see...

 

Izturis was effectively replaced by Fontenot.

Theriot is an emerging player, who is coming on strong -- so I am sure in some sense he is learning how to hit with RISP better.

Ramirez is not hurt

Soriano got moved from CF to LF which seems to benefit him.

Matt Murton is not starting.

 

Earlier in the season the Brewers were hitting very well with RISP, did we forget how to be clutch?

 

I think Hardy "doesn't know" how to be "clutch" since pitchers have quit serving him up fastballs. (for example).

 

I think Weeks has flat out forgot to hit.

 

I never brought up the concept of "clutch" or "random variance" -- the only point I was trying to make, is that you cannot claim by comparing 2 players OPS (in all cases) is an objective fact in their overall contribution to an offense and that offense's ability to score runs and win games.

 

I really do not want to come of as being snarky, but I have a degree in EE with an emphasis in Materials -- which is probably one of the most statistical dependent fields in engineering that I am aware of. I say this because I truly want to have the stat guys backs on this site, but sometime you really make it hard when posters get Yosted in the backside with your small sample/randomness mantras every time anyone makes an observation. I made a comment about the objectivity of OPS and it turns into a another discussion about small sample randomness.

 

I have a problem with applying principles that are used with silicon wafers on first baseman, and expecting that the analysis is as sound/acceptable.

[1992casey]

A good sabermetrician is skeptical of everything he encounters. That would even pertain to his own stuff. As a matter of fact, the first thing that flies up a at least a yellow flag in my mind is if the so-called study doesn't attempt to identify its own flaws.

 

I love the use of the word, 'snarky', by the way. It's one of hawing's favorite words and it's quickly becoming one of mine. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Ennder]

Quote:

---

I made a comment about the objectivity of OPS and it turns into a another discussion about small sample randomness

---

 

No, you pointed at runs scored meaning more than OPS and I pointed out that the reason the Cubs are scoring a lot is they have been getting a lot of RISP type hits which over a small sample is variance. The Cubs have put up a .691 OPS this month and managed to score as many runs per game as they have the rest of the season, that is simply balls bouncing their way, there is no other plausible explanation for it.

 

If you are in a statistically heavy field you should know that looking at a one month sample of data in baseball is almost completely useless for judging future success. While I agree you can't just compare players OPS I also don't think looking at runs scored or wins over a month holds any more value than just looking at the OPS.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think Hardy "doesn't know" how to be "clutch" since pitchers have quit serving him up fastballs. (for example).

 

Theriot is an emerging player, who is coming on strong -- so I am sure in some sense he is learning how to hit with RISP better.

 

At some point don't you think Theriot will have to deal with the same adjustments when pitchers find his weakness? It seems a little odd that Hardy forgot how to hit yet Theriot will emerge and never go trough what Hardy is going through now. If anything Hardy is ahead of Theriot in the sense that he has already went through part of his adjustment period.

 

 

I think Weeks has flat out forgot to hit.

 

In the meantime Graffy relearned how to hit so nice bit of luck for us there.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

For every reason given why the Cubs are doing so well recently there is one to explain why the Brewers did so well earlier. For every reason the Brewers cooled down there is reason to believe the Cubs will as well.

One thing not mentioned that I believe will start to show in August and September is depth. The Cubs have blown through theirs finding servicable starters. The Brewers have plenty of it and when with Hall back and the addition to the pen and Sheets inevitable return for the stretch run it will even be stronger. The dog days of August really test a team's depth. That is one area were I believe the Brewers are head and shoulder above the Cubs.

It's also the reason I believe the Brewers will prevail in a tight race all the way to the wire.

[Ennder]

Btw Theriot has a .696 OPS and that has actually gone down over the past 2 months, that is not emerging.

[strawbossisevil]

Like Ennder is saying. OPS is the best "simple" stat we have that correlates to runs produced (and what can be expected to be produced).

 

Obviously, as you pointed out a team can have a lower OPS and still manage to score runs. This comes from taking advantage of a higher amount of scoring chances than is normal. Now if the Cubs continue to hit as they have, eventually their luck is going to run out. The Brewers on the other hand have put lots of runners on the bases and have had plenty of scoring chances, probably quite a few more than the Cubs over this past stretch, but have failed to capitalize as often.

 

Think of it this way, a team might load the bases once in a game and have a grandslam and put four runs on the board.

 

Another team might load the bases every inning and not score a single run.

 

Although those situations are extreme, it gets the point across. The Cubs have been the ones leaning toward the first extreme, the Brewers toward the other extreme. Over a full season, however, this evens out.

[Fatter than Joey]

No, you pointed at runs scored meaning more than OPS

 

No -- and perhaps I did a poor job illustrating my point.

 

Strawboss had gone through both rosters and shown where the Brewers had advantages in most positions (offensively speaking using OPS)

 

My point was:

 

You cannot take 2 players/teams, and compare their OPS's and then objectively say one is better than the other.

 

I illustrated that point by showing that the Cubs OPS was worse than the Brewers, but yet they scored more runs, which contributed to their wins.

 

Am I saying runs scored means more than OPS? -- not at all. All I am trying to illustrate is that OPS is not as objective as many people may want to claim. There are aspects of a players offensive value that OPS does not measure.

 

The Cubs have put up a .691 OPS this month and managed to score as many runs per game as they have the rest of the season, that is simply balls bouncing their way, there is no other plausible explanation for it.

 

I don't agree that the only explanation is ball-bouncing.

 

For example:

 

There have been roster moves.

 

Some teams/players are going to be better in moving runners while they make outs, OPS does not account for that. Some teams/players are going to be better/worse at getting runners from 1st to 3rd on a single

 

The Brewers have a young team -- I think it is reasonable that some players will "learn" to hit with RISP better, and some players like Hardy will "forget" when pitchers change their approach to him.

 

If you are in a statistically heavy field you should know that looking at a one month sample of data in baseball is almost completely useless for judging future success.

 

Sure, but for the sake of argument, since we have only 2 months to go, people are going to use small samples to try and project other small samples -- it's just the nature of the beast. It probably is sloppy methodology, but people will try anyway.

 

While I agree you can't just compare players OPS I also don't think looking at runs scored or wins over a month holds any more value than just looking at the OPS.

 

This is where I failed -- I did not want to compare the 2 metrics. I wanted use runs/wins only to illustrate the short-comings of OPS.

 

For example -- If you had a Prince Fielder that was a few pounds lighter, but hit the same, he probably would have more value to a team offensively, as he could score from 2nd easier, etc.. but that value would not show up in OPS. Another example could be if Johnny Estrada all of a sudden started hitting all of his crappy grounders behind the runners, his OPS would be the same, but his offensive contribution would increase.

[Fatter than Joey]

Btw Theriot has a .696 OPS and that has actually gone down over the past 2 months, that is not emerging.

 

My bad -- I meant Fontenot. He is having a pretty good month.

 

At some point don't you think Theriot will have to deal with the same adjustments when pitchers find his weakness? It seems a little odd that Hardy forgot how to hit yet Theriot will emerge and never go trough what Hardy is going through now. If anything Hardy is ahead of Theriot in the sense that he has already went through part of his adjustment period.

 

Sure (I meant Fontenot) -- but I use Hardy as an illustration of a player that can "forget" how to bat with RISP. Fontenot may do better or worse -- that is left to be seen.

 

In the meantime Graffy relearned how to hit so nice bit of luck for us there.

 

Amen.

 

That is one area were I believe the Brewers are head and shoulder above the Cubs.

 

We will see -- I am not sure I agree or disagree.

 

OPS is the best "simple" stat we have that correlates to runs produced (and what can be expected to be produced).

 

It may be the best -- but it still is incomplete and analysis using it exclusively is subjective.

 

Over a full season, however, this evens out.

 

No -- It's not that simple. If 2 teams are equal in talent and attributes -- then perhaps -- otherwise there is no reason to think things will even out. There is an element of talent and ability that gets glossed over here.

 

Furthermore you are talk about 2 teams that have made roster changes. so you really can't expect things to even out when the dudes that created the April stats may not be there, or are hurt/healed.

 

At the end of the day though Strawboss, your analysis may be right -- we will have to see what happens.

[strawbossisevil]

Quote:

---

My bad -- I meant Fontenot.

---

 

Even Fontenot has been struggling lately, his average had dropped almost 100 points since we last played them.

[Ennder]

Quote:

---

I don't agree that the only explanation is ball-bouncing.

 

For example:

 

There have been roster moves.

 

Some teams/players are going to be better in moving runners while they make outs, OPS does not account for that. Some teams/players are going to be better/worse at getting runners from 1st to 3rd on a single

---

 

This is a point I will never agree with you on. While yes this might add up to a couple extra runs they are scoring runs at about the same rate as in June while dropping .085 points in OPS. Their SB's are down in that stretch as well. That is variance and thats it. I don't know why so many people refuse to aknowledge that variance plays a large role in baseball.

 

This is exactly the same discussion we had earlier in the year about Bush who has pitched exactly like before other than his BABIP evening out and suddenly he's doing well. Over a small sample of data there is a lot of noise that needs to be removed to see what is happening.

 

Lets look at Dave Bush.

 

April - 30.1 IP, 39 H, 21 ER, 2 HR, 5 BB, 26 K - 6.23 ERA

July - 30.1 IP, 31 H, 15 ER, 6 HR, 9 BB, 26 K - 4.45 ERA

 

He obviously pitched better in April but had much uglier results, runs scored of any type are a terrible indicator of anything because there is so much varience involved with them.

[Fatter than Joey]

Lets look at Dave Bush.

 

Please...

 

This is exactly the same discussion we had earlier in the year about Bush who has pitched exactly like before other than his BABIP evening out and suddenly he's doing well.

 

Are you talking about Dave or George? -- If you mean by "suddenly he's doing well" June, I would agree. His July looks a lot like his April and May.

 

As I recall our Bush discussions, it was about him evening out his April ERA to what his career norms would be, something around 4.20. In fact I seem to recall you or Russ making the comment that if his ERA was 5.00 at the AS break he'd probably by demoted (bullpen or something). Well we are past the AS break and Bush has a 4.91 ERA -- which I grant you is better than his April ERA, but I dont think any of us thought his ERA would remain at 6+ for very long.

 

Bush is a very frustrating pitcher for me to watch -- because he has flashes of being a very good pitcher, but man, he just gets way too much of the plate up in the zone, and then he gives up runs and the Brewers lose. I suspect that his 2007 ERA will end up being closer to 5 than to 4, and that would be worse than his career norms, which is what I thought may happen all along. I hope Bush proves me wrong, and strings together some 0ER or 1ER starts -- but I think its going to be a lot more 6IP 3ER and 5IP 4ER starts here on out.

 

Ironically I thought his career norms were to small of a sample to project 2007 from. Especially when he pitched only 2 years, one in each league. I always got the impression that coming into 2007 he was lucky that his ERA was not higher.

[Ayt]

Quote:

---

Even Fontenot has been struggling lately, his average had dropped almost 100 points since we last played them

---

 

Not surprising. He's a 27 year old rookie who spent the last four years in AAA.

 

In his first 22 games up, he hit .400 with an OPS of 1.111. That is for games through June 30th. In July, he's hit .217 with an OPS of .501.

 

Theriot is also basically a nobody minor leaguer. I remember a good friend of mine who is a big Cubs fan going nuts about him last year when he hit .328 with an OPS of .934 in 134 ABs. Then I linked him to his minor league page at baseball cube.

[Thurston Fluff]

I fthe Cubs do have some ability to make better outs or what ever they should show up in a more indepth comparison.

 

ML rank

Cubs Brewers

RISP 15th 20th

(RBI)

 

RISP 11th 8th

(SLG)

 

RISP 15th 20th

(runs)

 

RISP 7th 21st

(hits)

 

RISP 2 outs 6th 21st

(Runs)

 

RISP 2 outs 10th 20th

SLG

 

RISP 2 outs 12th 26th

(hits)

 

Bases loaded 22nd 2nd

(SLG)

 

Bases loaded 28th 22nd

(runs)

 

Bases loaded tied 22nd tied 22nd

(hits)

 

If there is some sort of ability to hit better under the circumstance we should also add what a team does with no one on. It's the most common circumstance there is.

 

None on 14th 2nd

(SLG)

 

None on 26th 17th

(OBP)

 

 

Over all the Cubs may be better at the moment than the Brewers in some ways but they are not superior league wide in any catergory to say they have some type of special ability other teams don't. I think to suggest the Cubs have some sort of ability the usual stats missed there should be some sort of correlation to consistantly higher rankings in most of the categories. It should be noted the Kansas City Royals fared better than the Brewers and the Cubs in several of the categories and so did the Marlins.

[Fatter than Joey]

Over all the Cubs may be better at the moment than the Brewers in some ways but they are not superior league wide in any category to say they have some type of special ability other teams don't. I think to suggest the Cubs have some sort of ability the usual stats missed there should be some sort of correlation to consistently higher rankings in most of the categories.

 

I am at all not contending that the Cubs are superior -- only that if you compare 2 teams or players, using OPS alone -- that is not objective.

[strawbossisevil]

Quote:

---

I am at all not contending that the Cubs are superior -- only that if you compare 2 teams or players, using OPS alone -- that is not objective.

---

 

I would say that it is objective, since I am putting no spin on the numbers. I am just letting the bare numbers speak for themselves. If others want to spin the numbers in ways to change how they look, that's fine and not necessarily wrong, but it's less objective.

 

As far as OPS goes, the Brewers are better than the Cubs at 6 out of the 8 lineup positions. That is objective. What is not objective is to start taking small samples to try and show that the Cubs or Brewers are better despite what the bare numbers say.

 

I guess I don't know how someone could be more objective than what I did, just stating the bare stats on the season. Perhaps I could have dug a little deeper and gone to OPS+ or something, but I decided to stay simple.

[Fatter than Joey]

I would say that it is objective, since I am putting no spin on the numbers.

 

OPS is incomplete. Using OPS only is arbitrary, when trying to compare 2 offenses. OPS in no way takes into consideration baserunning, or other things.

 

As far as OPS goes, the Brewers are better than the Cubs at 6 out of the 8 lineup positions.

 

Assuming starters start -- that is another aspect that is missing. Bench contributions.

 

I guess I don't know how someone could be more objective than what I did, just stating the bare stats on the season. Perhaps I could have dug a little deeper and gone to OPS+ or something, but I decided to stay simple.

 

Please understand that there is nothing wrong with what you did -- I took issue with saying "Prince is better than Lee (in 2007) he has an higher OPS that is objective" -- All I am saying is that players have more offensive contributions than OPS.

 

I apologize if I seemed critical -- there is nothing wrong with simple/quick and dirty -- I just don't find using OPS exclusively objective, any more than using Fielding Pct. exclusively to determine who is a better defender.