Cubs-Brewers roster comparison

[1992casey]

The way I'd define 'objective' is setting evaluation criteria in the beginning and not changing it from player to player. You want to avoid an apples to oranges comparison. Whether you're using OPS or VORP or whatever, objectivity shouldn't be affected.

 

If you're finding that two players fall very close in your initial "objective" evaluation, then you can "objectively" use some kind of predetermined fallback.

 

I'd say strawboss was objective; the argument should be whether or not OPS was the best stat. As I mentioned in the early part of this thread, I think it's fine unless you want to get picky when things are close. (Myself? For the sake of this thread, I'd probably just declare two similar OPSs a tie.)

 

OPS+ is a little nicer, of course, because of the ballpark factors. Ballpark factors aren't always perfect, but with breathing room, nothing should break badly and it'll probably improve on OPS a little bit. Where it's very useful is comparing extremes, such as doing a Padres-Rockies comparison.

[Thurston Fluff]

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.

 

 

Sorry I guess I missed what your point was. I just thought using the context of the thread that somehow you were suggesting the Cubs are one of those teams who are more productive with their ab's. Honestly for the current discussion you would have to say that to say there is some reason to believe the Cubs do have a better offense than the OPS suggests.

 

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

 

In general I agree with you. In the specific case of the Cubs I just don't see it. What I did see while looking up the stats was a fairly wild variance with Detroit and Boston generally being at the top. I didn't do a specific rank of all of them just a general (and fairly quick) impression. Overall there was so much change in each category it would be hard for me to say there are teams who excel in certain situations that could be related to an actual skill. But I fully admit I dind't do anything significant and am going on general impressions.

[DrWood]

anyone that doesn't think the brewers offense and bullpen is better than the Cubs simply doesn't know what they are talking about. You can make the case for their starting pitching; however the only ones I'd want are zambrano and lilly (and they are getting paid handsomely). hill is fine. I wouldn't take marshall or marquis over anyone that has started for the brewers this season.

[1992casey]

Dr. Wood, "anyone ? simply doesn't know what they are talking about" crosses the condescension line. Please go to "My Control Center" and enable your inbox so you'll be in compliance with Brewerfan policy. I'd have preferred to PM you on this.

[Fatter than Joey]

The way I'd define 'objective' is setting evaluation criteria in the beginning and not changing it from player to player.

 

Well maybe I am not doing a good job with the idea "objectivity".

 

I would say OPS is more robustly defined than fielding Pct., for example

 

I am OK with comparing 2 players OPS and calling that objective -- however I guess I find taking the 8 position players head to head and calling it 6-2 in favor of one team, rather incomplete and/or arbitrary. -- Again not that there is anything wrong or incorrect with it -- but I have a hard time agreeing based on that evidence.

[monty57]

Backupcatchers, your MLB ranks for the Brewers w/ RISP would seem to show that the Brewers try to hit the 2- 3- or 4- run HR rather than simply hitting the ball, leading to low numbers in everything except slugging.

 

I think that's evident while watching them, but your numbers seem to back it up.

[1992casey]

---

I am OK with comparing 2 players OPS and calling that objective -- however I guess I find taking the 8 position players head to head and calling it 6-2 in favor of one team, rather incomplete and/or arbitrary.

---

I agree with that statement completely. Some pairs stack up about the same, in some comparisons, one player is a little bit better, and in other cases one player is a whole lot better.

 

You're fine when you look at the individuals, but adding up the totals player by player is fatally flawed. The bummer is you see that methodology in many game or series previews, and not just in baseball, either.

 

The same thing applies when you look at team or individual rankings. If a team or player is ranked #3 and another is ranked #11, and there's not much difference in the stat being measured, it's way misleading to simply report the ranking.

 

Now that I think about it, objectivity doesn't seem to be the problem here. Allowing oneself to be mislead by the numbers (or do misleading with the numbers) could easily be, though.

[Fatter than Joey]

yep -- I think the Cubs are going to give teams fits on both sides of the ball here on out.

[rluzinski]

however I guess I find taking the 8 position players head to head and calling it 6-2 in favor of one team, rather incomplete and/or arbitrary.

 

It's a very bad way to compare two teams, IMO. It completely ignores the relative difference at each position, causing some serious distortions at times.

 

OPS is quick and dirty offensive measure but it's not even close to the best measure. After 100+ games, straight runs scored can give you an OK idea of a team's offensive prowess (assuming consistent personnel).

[logan82]

I believe that most people here thought the Cubs would be a strong offensive team with bad pitching. That should win plenty of games in the regular season especially facing bottom of the rotation pitchers. I think the surprising thing has been their pitching. Any team with that kind of offensive firepower has a chance to win every night. Just ask the Yankees.

[Ennder]

The thing is the Cubs are not a great offensive team. They are 8th in runs scored in the NL right now and thats with them scoring more runs than their actual stats would suggest. They are 2nd in the league in ERA with a rotation that should probably rank them more in the middle tiers (they are 7th in FIP and its a hitters park).

[Fatter than Joey]

I believe that most people here thought the Cubs would be a strong offensive team with bad pitching.

 

I am not sure that this is accurate -- I think most people here thought the Cubs would be BETTER offensively by acquiring some base cloggers (and losing Murton, Cedeno and Pierre and getting Lee healthy) -- but not necessarily strong.

 

As far as the pitching -- I think we may have collectively underestimated Hill and Marshall -- however many people here saw Lilly as underrated, pitching in the very tough AL East, and Marquis has been surprisingly serviceable probably much like Vargas has been for us.

 

And of course Pinella was not going to be any worse that Dusty.