The Cubs drew 8 walks last night. And it wasn't just the usual suspects like Fukudome, Lee, Ramirez, Soto, and Theriot. This time Soriano, Colvin, and even Carlos Silva got into the act.
We talked about Colvin yesterday but Soriano? 3 walks? Really? Could it be that after all these years that Soriano is finally making an adjustment? If so, it would be a remarkable turnabout for a player who has always relied on his tremendous athletic ability to get by. I'm hoping that the patience he has displayed over the past few days is an admission of sorts by Soriano that he can no longer hit everything in the 773 area code. It's a natural part of aging, part of which has probably been accelerated by injuries in Soriano's case, that things start to slow down. We know he doesn't run as well, it also appears the bat speed has slowed and he struggles to keep up with harder fastballs. The plate coverage is also diminished.
He has shown that he is still more than capable of hitting pitches within the strike zone, however. And if he can make up for some of his shortcomings by 1) swinging only at pitches he can catch up to and 2) get on base by drawing an occasional walk in the process, then he can still be an asset to this team. He won't ever be that 18M player, but he can help this team on offense.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tyler Colvin: He must be doing something right...
A country singer waxes patriotic in the opening scene of the excellent movie Nashville by Robert Altman. The refrain concludes with the great line, "We must be doing something right to last 200 years!"
I don't know what makes me laugh more, is it the uncertainty of the sentence or is it that 200 years is an infancy when you compare to the longevity of many other countries around the world? It is, we can say, a small sample size and, even still, according to the song, we're not sure what we did to get this far.
The same thing can be said of Tyler Colvin and his 33 ABs this year. For the most part, he's looked pretty good so far. So how did he get here? And will it last? It is still early but I'm going to say that I like what I've seen of Tyler Colvin in just 33 ABs. In fact, I really like what he did in his last 3 ABs yesterday. I think he's gotten better since spring training. Here's why in terms of a pitch-by-pitch analysis of his 3rd at bat.
AB# 3:
Pitch 1: Fastball outside, taken for a ball
Pitch 2: Low changeup...a pitch he usually swings at and gets out in front of. This time he takes it. Ball 2.
Pitch 3: A slider on the inside corner. A strike, but not the pitch he wanted. 2-1
Pitch 4: A fastball low and outside, the kind of pitch he sometimes chases. Not this time. 3-1
Pitch 5: A fastball just below his knees that should have been called a ball. But since Colvin's a rookie, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. The ump calls it a strike. Full count.
Pitch 6: An 83 mph changeup, up in the strike zone. Even though he was probably expecting a 3-2 fastball, Colvin kept his hands back and hit a sharp groundball that gets past Prince Fielder for a single.
I love that AB. Probably my favorite of the day. That is the kind of AB that gives me hope about Colvin more than the 2b or the Hr. I already know he can hit pitcher's mistakes. I'm more excited about him working the count, laying off tempting pitches (even when they are pitcher's strikes), then keeping his hands back and staying on a changeup - a pitch that would have fooled many rookies - and hitting it hard enough to get through for a single.
In his 4th AB, Colvin walked on 4 pitches. It is his 4th walk in his 37th plate appearance. It's early but that makes for about an 11% walk rate. If Colvin can keep that up, we should see him continue to get even better.
In his 5th AB, Colvin saw a total of 7 pitches before lining out sharply to Fielder.
All 3 of those ABs could have ended in walks had Colvin gotten some borderline calls, but the important thing for him is that he continues to take more and more pitches -- a departure from his minor league days - even his Spring Training days. Here's hoping Colvin keeps that approach: Some will result in walks and some will result in better swings and sharply hit balls, all will result in good ABs and better pitches to hit. Maybe it's Rudy Jaramillo, maybe it's the veteran presence of hitters like Lee and Byrd, maybe Colvin had an epiphany.
One things for sure, even though it's only been a month, Colvin must be doing something right...
I don't know what makes me laugh more, is it the uncertainty of the sentence or is it that 200 years is an infancy when you compare to the longevity of many other countries around the world? It is, we can say, a small sample size and, even still, according to the song, we're not sure what we did to get this far.
The same thing can be said of Tyler Colvin and his 33 ABs this year. For the most part, he's looked pretty good so far. So how did he get here? And will it last? It is still early but I'm going to say that I like what I've seen of Tyler Colvin in just 33 ABs. In fact, I really like what he did in his last 3 ABs yesterday. I think he's gotten better since spring training. Here's why in terms of a pitch-by-pitch analysis of his 3rd at bat.
AB# 3:
Pitch 1: Fastball outside, taken for a ball
Pitch 2: Low changeup...a pitch he usually swings at and gets out in front of. This time he takes it. Ball 2.
Pitch 3: A slider on the inside corner. A strike, but not the pitch he wanted. 2-1
Pitch 4: A fastball low and outside, the kind of pitch he sometimes chases. Not this time. 3-1
Pitch 5: A fastball just below his knees that should have been called a ball. But since Colvin's a rookie, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. The ump calls it a strike. Full count.
Pitch 6: An 83 mph changeup, up in the strike zone. Even though he was probably expecting a 3-2 fastball, Colvin kept his hands back and hit a sharp groundball that gets past Prince Fielder for a single.
I love that AB. Probably my favorite of the day. That is the kind of AB that gives me hope about Colvin more than the 2b or the Hr. I already know he can hit pitcher's mistakes. I'm more excited about him working the count, laying off tempting pitches (even when they are pitcher's strikes), then keeping his hands back and staying on a changeup - a pitch that would have fooled many rookies - and hitting it hard enough to get through for a single.
In his 4th AB, Colvin walked on 4 pitches. It is his 4th walk in his 37th plate appearance. It's early but that makes for about an 11% walk rate. If Colvin can keep that up, we should see him continue to get even better.
In his 5th AB, Colvin saw a total of 7 pitches before lining out sharply to Fielder.
All 3 of those ABs could have ended in walks had Colvin gotten some borderline calls, but the important thing for him is that he continues to take more and more pitches -- a departure from his minor league days - even his Spring Training days. Here's hoping Colvin keeps that approach: Some will result in walks and some will result in better swings and sharply hit balls, all will result in good ABs and better pitches to hit. Maybe it's Rudy Jaramillo, maybe it's the veteran presence of hitters like Lee and Byrd, maybe Colvin had an epiphany.
One things for sure, even though it's only been a month, Colvin must be doing something right...
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday Farm Report:
Starlin Castro is in a rut. He has been caught stealing in his last 3 attempts. Other than that, he's been an absolute beast. Here are the numbers on Castro and some of the other Cubs prospects:
I'm expanding the list to 10...oh, make that 11, players to watch...
Hitters
Starlin Castro- AA: .426 average, .705 Slugging pct., and an 1.160 OPS. It's early but those numbers are incredible. It didn't seem possible that Castro could continue to improve on the numbers from his hot start, but he has. The question now is how long before he gets the call.
Robinson Chirinos- AA: I'm no longer putting him in the sleeper category. This guy is going to be a major league catcher. Right now, Piniella seems to have a bit of a mancrush on Koyie Hill, so Chirinos is stuck until someone gets hurt. But for now he has passed Chris Robinson, Welington Castillo, and Steve Clevenger on the Cubs catching depth chart. His numbers are nearly as good as Castro's: .341 Avg., 4 homeruns, .396 OBP, .707 Slugging, and a 1.103 OPS.
Brandon Guyer- AA: He has joined Hak Ju Lee and Logan Watkins as legitimate leadoff prospects in the Cubs system. He looks to be translating his great athleticism into useable baseball skills. He is hitting .314 with 11 walks, giving him an OBP of .453. He also has 7 steals in 7 attempts.
Brett Jackson- High A: He's hitting .302 and he's walked 14 times for a .436 OBP. His strikeout rate is still about about 1 in every 6 ABs. All good. The bad? Still just 2 extra base hits. Jackson is supposed to be a power hitter, but working on his contact skills continues to have a negative effect on his slugging, which is at a paltry .396.
Josh Vitters- High A: He's at .279 with 6 doubles and 2 HRs, giving him a slugging pct. of .456. Better than his bad start but he still has a ways to go. He has walked 4 times in 68 ABs, which for him can be considered an improvement - but it's still inadequate. A mediocre start for Vitters, but I look for him to continue improving.
Keep your eye on:
Brandon Snyder, AAA. He's a former first round pick of the Cleveland Indians. They gave up on him early and the Cubs snatched him up. They really like this kid and over the past 2 years, he has begun to pay some dividends. He's athletic, has an arm that'll play in RF, and some good power. He's at .339 with 3 Hrs, and a .990 OPS. While Sam Fuld is the name we all knowm, he is no longer even starting at AAA. Jim Adducci is also struggling. If something happens to an outfielder, Snyder is positioning himself to get the call.
Matt Spencer- High A: Injured at the beginning of the year, Spencer has come out swinging. He's hitting .375 with 2 2Bs and a HR. That gives him a slugging pct. of .583 and an OPS of .958. Acquired with Jeff Gray in the Jake Fox deal, Spencer is in the mold of Brett Jackson, Brandon Guyer, Tyler Colvin and Brandon Snyder. All of them are the kinds of athletic, toolsy outfielders that scouting director Tim Wilken covets.
Pitchers:
Andrew Cashner- AA: Has not pitched since last week, so nothing new to update there. He isn't hurt. There's just been some rainouts in Tennessee.
Jay Jackson - AAA: He's 2-1, with a 2.00 ERA. Importantly for him, he's only walked 3 and given up in 9 hits in 18 innings while striking out 12. I'd like the strikeout ratio to come up but, overall, I'll take it.
Keep your eye on:
Dae Un Rhee- High A: Could join Cashner and Jackson as top of the rotation type starters if he can bounce back from his injury. He got off to a slow start but in his last start he gave just 1 hit in 6 innings.
Trey McNutt- Low A: Considered a poor man's Andrew Cashner, McNutt has been dominating low A ball hitters with a 1.29 ERA and 17 strikeouts in 14 innings. He probably won't be in low A ball much longer.
I'm expanding the list to 10...oh, make that 11, players to watch...
Hitters
Starlin Castro- AA: .426 average, .705 Slugging pct., and an 1.160 OPS. It's early but those numbers are incredible. It didn't seem possible that Castro could continue to improve on the numbers from his hot start, but he has. The question now is how long before he gets the call.
Robinson Chirinos- AA: I'm no longer putting him in the sleeper category. This guy is going to be a major league catcher. Right now, Piniella seems to have a bit of a mancrush on Koyie Hill, so Chirinos is stuck until someone gets hurt. But for now he has passed Chris Robinson, Welington Castillo, and Steve Clevenger on the Cubs catching depth chart. His numbers are nearly as good as Castro's: .341 Avg., 4 homeruns, .396 OBP, .707 Slugging, and a 1.103 OPS.
Brandon Guyer- AA: He has joined Hak Ju Lee and Logan Watkins as legitimate leadoff prospects in the Cubs system. He looks to be translating his great athleticism into useable baseball skills. He is hitting .314 with 11 walks, giving him an OBP of .453. He also has 7 steals in 7 attempts.
Brett Jackson- High A: He's hitting .302 and he's walked 14 times for a .436 OBP. His strikeout rate is still about about 1 in every 6 ABs. All good. The bad? Still just 2 extra base hits. Jackson is supposed to be a power hitter, but working on his contact skills continues to have a negative effect on his slugging, which is at a paltry .396.
Josh Vitters- High A: He's at .279 with 6 doubles and 2 HRs, giving him a slugging pct. of .456. Better than his bad start but he still has a ways to go. He has walked 4 times in 68 ABs, which for him can be considered an improvement - but it's still inadequate. A mediocre start for Vitters, but I look for him to continue improving.
Keep your eye on:
Brandon Snyder, AAA. He's a former first round pick of the Cleveland Indians. They gave up on him early and the Cubs snatched him up. They really like this kid and over the past 2 years, he has begun to pay some dividends. He's athletic, has an arm that'll play in RF, and some good power. He's at .339 with 3 Hrs, and a .990 OPS. While Sam Fuld is the name we all knowm, he is no longer even starting at AAA. Jim Adducci is also struggling. If something happens to an outfielder, Snyder is positioning himself to get the call.
Matt Spencer- High A: Injured at the beginning of the year, Spencer has come out swinging. He's hitting .375 with 2 2Bs and a HR. That gives him a slugging pct. of .583 and an OPS of .958. Acquired with Jeff Gray in the Jake Fox deal, Spencer is in the mold of Brett Jackson, Brandon Guyer, Tyler Colvin and Brandon Snyder. All of them are the kinds of athletic, toolsy outfielders that scouting director Tim Wilken covets.
Pitchers:
Andrew Cashner- AA: Has not pitched since last week, so nothing new to update there. He isn't hurt. There's just been some rainouts in Tennessee.
Jay Jackson - AAA: He's 2-1, with a 2.00 ERA. Importantly for him, he's only walked 3 and given up in 9 hits in 18 innings while striking out 12. I'd like the strikeout ratio to come up but, overall, I'll take it.
Keep your eye on:
Dae Un Rhee- High A: Could join Cashner and Jackson as top of the rotation type starters if he can bounce back from his injury. He got off to a slow start but in his last start he gave just 1 hit in 6 innings.
Trey McNutt- Low A: Considered a poor man's Andrew Cashner, McNutt has been dominating low A ball hitters with a 1.29 ERA and 17 strikeouts in 14 innings. He probably won't be in low A ball much longer.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Zambrano move more fodder for the sabermetric faithful
Let's just say the Zambrano move was very unpopular with the numerically inclined. The numbers have been crunched and the verdict is...Off with Hendry's head! For a look into what everyone is screaming about, here's a link...
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/piniella-zambrano-to-bullpen
So, does this mean this is an absolute horrible idea?
Here's a very brief recap of what people are saying...
*18M for a set-up man is a pretty inefficient use of funds in which the Cubs cannot possibly see a positive return on investment.
*Zambrano is a better pitcher than Silva per FIP and xFIP
*Silva cannot continue this torrid pace. His BABIP rate of .178 is unsustainable. He will "regress to the mean" over the course of the season.
You could go on and on. And, you know what? It's all true.
So...did the Cubs just really dash their playoff chances with one swift stroke?
Hardly.
When you look at sabermetric analysis, consider that it pretty much boils down to betting on the most likely outcome based on historical trends. But it isn't a black and white solution. This isn't irrefutable proof. This is like betting on the favorite at the race track. But you know what? If you always bet on the favorite, you will eventually go broke. Despite having the best odds, the odds of the favorite losing are often greater. If you really want to come out ahead, you have to buck the trend and beat the odds every once in a while. That is what the Cubs are trying to do -- and relax, everyone,they are not betting the whole farm on this one.
The odds are that over the course of the season with an equal number of starts, Zambrano will be a better pitcher than Silva by the year's end. However, analysis that uses FIP is using the most favorable argument. It deliberately eschews xFIP, which is more respected in most circles. Using xFIP, the gap between Zambrano and Silva is closer than you might think. And with Silva healthy and trending in one direction and Zambrano becoming less and less dependable and with some pretty mediocre xFIPs in the past few years, I'm inclined to believe the distance between Z and Silva has been greatly exaggerated.
And no one is expecting Carlos Silva to continue his current trend. We know he's going to regress. The Cubs know he's going to regress. Carlos Silva probably knows he's going to regress. We all know! The question is to what point? Since he is healthy for the first time in 3 years, is it possible that he can return to his 2007 numbers? Certainly. Silva's xFIP that year was 4.57. And it's not an outlier. In fact his career xFIP, including the horrid years in Seattle, is 4.47. For comparison's sake, Carlos Zambrano's xFIP in 2007 when he won 18 games was 4.62 -- higher than Silva's that year. Zambrano's xFIP numbers over the last three years: 4.62, 4.45, and an upward spike of 4.27 last season, though he didn't pitch deep into games and wasn't the workhorse the Cubs had come to depend on. Anyone who watched the Cubs last year couldn't seriously call Zambrano valuable last year, xFIP spike notwithstanding. And by the way, when you weight the averages for innings pitched, Carlos Zambrano's xFIP over the past 3 years is 4.47. The same as Silva's career xFIP. So taken into perspective, are those numbers really something to lose sleep over? I think if the Carlos Silva of 2010 can be as good (per xFIP) as the Carlos Zambrano of the past 3 years, the Cubs will take it. All it would take is for a return to his career average. That's what they're betting on. He doesn't need to sustain his current pace for this move to work.
As for spending 18M on a reliever, whoopie doo. That's overcompartmetalizing things. Let's look at the big picture. They're spending 18M whether he starts or whether he relieves. They are going to spend 25M between a starter and a set-up man anyway you slice it. If he can help the Cubs main weakness, the high leverage bullpen innings and Silva can at least approach Zambrano's numbers as a starter, then it may just be the best allocation of resources under the circumstances. The question it boils down to isn't whether Zambrano is a better starter than Silva. The question is this: Are the Cubs better off with Zambrano starting and Silva setting up games or a they better off with Silva starting and Zambrano setting up Marmol? The Cubs are betting that Zambrano will make a much better reliever than Silva and I'm inclined to agree on this one. Not only do all the stats we've talked about back that up, but you have to consider Zambrano's aggressive mentality, his power arsenal, and the fact that statisitically in his career, he has been much better the first time through the lineup. And it's less of a strain on the staff if the Cubs have to yank him early because of temper tantrums or crampy forearms.
So you get a possible major upgrade in the bullpen and a probable (but exaggerated) downgrade in the starting rotation. The overall payroll doesn't change one cent. It's the Cubs thinking outside the box. It may not work, but things weren't exactly working with Z in the rotation, and no one truly expected the Cubs to get much better. It's a move that took some guts. It's easy to recite the trends, salaries and numbers that most baseball people (including the Cubs who do have an advanced statistical analyst on the payroll) are already aware of.
Here's hoping the Cubs beat the odds and bet on a winner this time. It may not be the favorite, but it doesn't mean it doesn't stand a decent chance. And if it turns out to be the also-ran everybody thinks it will be, there's still plenty of time left in the season for the Cubs to hedge their bet and change their horse.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/piniella-zambrano-to-bullpen
So, does this mean this is an absolute horrible idea?
Here's a very brief recap of what people are saying...
*18M for a set-up man is a pretty inefficient use of funds in which the Cubs cannot possibly see a positive return on investment.
*Zambrano is a better pitcher than Silva per FIP and xFIP
*Silva cannot continue this torrid pace. His BABIP rate of .178 is unsustainable. He will "regress to the mean" over the course of the season.
You could go on and on. And, you know what? It's all true.
So...did the Cubs just really dash their playoff chances with one swift stroke?
Hardly.
When you look at sabermetric analysis, consider that it pretty much boils down to betting on the most likely outcome based on historical trends. But it isn't a black and white solution. This isn't irrefutable proof. This is like betting on the favorite at the race track. But you know what? If you always bet on the favorite, you will eventually go broke. Despite having the best odds, the odds of the favorite losing are often greater. If you really want to come out ahead, you have to buck the trend and beat the odds every once in a while. That is what the Cubs are trying to do -- and relax, everyone,they are not betting the whole farm on this one.
The odds are that over the course of the season with an equal number of starts, Zambrano will be a better pitcher than Silva by the year's end. However, analysis that uses FIP is using the most favorable argument. It deliberately eschews xFIP, which is more respected in most circles. Using xFIP, the gap between Zambrano and Silva is closer than you might think. And with Silva healthy and trending in one direction and Zambrano becoming less and less dependable and with some pretty mediocre xFIPs in the past few years, I'm inclined to believe the distance between Z and Silva has been greatly exaggerated.
And no one is expecting Carlos Silva to continue his current trend. We know he's going to regress. The Cubs know he's going to regress. Carlos Silva probably knows he's going to regress. We all know! The question is to what point? Since he is healthy for the first time in 3 years, is it possible that he can return to his 2007 numbers? Certainly. Silva's xFIP that year was 4.57. And it's not an outlier. In fact his career xFIP, including the horrid years in Seattle, is 4.47. For comparison's sake, Carlos Zambrano's xFIP in 2007 when he won 18 games was 4.62 -- higher than Silva's that year. Zambrano's xFIP numbers over the last three years: 4.62, 4.45, and an upward spike of 4.27 last season, though he didn't pitch deep into games and wasn't the workhorse the Cubs had come to depend on. Anyone who watched the Cubs last year couldn't seriously call Zambrano valuable last year, xFIP spike notwithstanding. And by the way, when you weight the averages for innings pitched, Carlos Zambrano's xFIP over the past 3 years is 4.47. The same as Silva's career xFIP. So taken into perspective, are those numbers really something to lose sleep over? I think if the Carlos Silva of 2010 can be as good (per xFIP) as the Carlos Zambrano of the past 3 years, the Cubs will take it. All it would take is for a return to his career average. That's what they're betting on. He doesn't need to sustain his current pace for this move to work.
As for spending 18M on a reliever, whoopie doo. That's overcompartmetalizing things. Let's look at the big picture. They're spending 18M whether he starts or whether he relieves. They are going to spend 25M between a starter and a set-up man anyway you slice it. If he can help the Cubs main weakness, the high leverage bullpen innings and Silva can at least approach Zambrano's numbers as a starter, then it may just be the best allocation of resources under the circumstances. The question it boils down to isn't whether Zambrano is a better starter than Silva. The question is this: Are the Cubs better off with Zambrano starting and Silva setting up games or a they better off with Silva starting and Zambrano setting up Marmol? The Cubs are betting that Zambrano will make a much better reliever than Silva and I'm inclined to agree on this one. Not only do all the stats we've talked about back that up, but you have to consider Zambrano's aggressive mentality, his power arsenal, and the fact that statisitically in his career, he has been much better the first time through the lineup. And it's less of a strain on the staff if the Cubs have to yank him early because of temper tantrums or crampy forearms.
So you get a possible major upgrade in the bullpen and a probable (but exaggerated) downgrade in the starting rotation. The overall payroll doesn't change one cent. It's the Cubs thinking outside the box. It may not work, but things weren't exactly working with Z in the rotation, and no one truly expected the Cubs to get much better. It's a move that took some guts. It's easy to recite the trends, salaries and numbers that most baseball people (including the Cubs who do have an advanced statistical analyst on the payroll) are already aware of.
Here's hoping the Cubs beat the odds and bet on a winner this time. It may not be the favorite, but it doesn't mean it doesn't stand a decent chance. And if it turns out to be the also-ran everybody thinks it will be, there's still plenty of time left in the season for the Cubs to hedge their bet and change their horse.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Zambrano to Bullpen
The Cubs are moving Zambrano to the bullpen. A little bit of a shocker but I raised this possibility a few days ago.
http://acubbyconsilience.blogspot.com/2010/04/as-lilly-blooms-zambrano-move-looms.html
What does it mean? Call it a trial run for a Zambrano-less rotation. The Cubs will see if Lilly can stay healthy and if Silva is for real. If this works in the short term, I predict the Cubs will look for someone to take Zambrano and his huge contract off their hands, preferably for a veteran reliever. I broached the possibility of a deal with the Mets involving Francisco Rodriguez in a swap of bad contracts.
The Cubs have to be thinking about opening roster spots for Andrew Cashner and Jay Jackson as well. Jackson is doing well at AAA. He's at a 2.00 ERA with only 9 hits and 3 walks in 18 innings. And Cashner has been dominant in AA with 25 strikeouts and 4 walks in 17 innings. Double A hitters have only managed to hit for a .119 average in 3 starts. It won't be long before both pitchers are in Chicago and moving Zambrano makes the Cubs rotation a lot more flexible.
If all goes well for the rotation in the next month or two, look for the next news about Zambrano to revolve around trade rumors. He surely can't be happy pitching out of the bullpen. Something tells me the no-trade clause will become much less of an obstacle now.
http://acubbyconsilience.blogspot.com/2010/04/as-lilly-blooms-zambrano-move-looms.html
What does it mean? Call it a trial run for a Zambrano-less rotation. The Cubs will see if Lilly can stay healthy and if Silva is for real. If this works in the short term, I predict the Cubs will look for someone to take Zambrano and his huge contract off their hands, preferably for a veteran reliever. I broached the possibility of a deal with the Mets involving Francisco Rodriguez in a swap of bad contracts.
The Cubs have to be thinking about opening roster spots for Andrew Cashner and Jay Jackson as well. Jackson is doing well at AAA. He's at a 2.00 ERA with only 9 hits and 3 walks in 18 innings. And Cashner has been dominant in AA with 25 strikeouts and 4 walks in 17 innings. Double A hitters have only managed to hit for a .119 average in 3 starts. It won't be long before both pitchers are in Chicago and moving Zambrano makes the Cubs rotation a lot more flexible.
If all goes well for the rotation in the next month or two, look for the next news about Zambrano to revolve around trade rumors. He surely can't be happy pitching out of the bullpen. Something tells me the no-trade clause will become much less of an obstacle now.
The infallible umpire
Every time I watch a game with my dad, the conversation is inevitable.
“These umpires suck. They should use one of those electronic eyes instead of the umpire”
I immediately think of the ominous words of HAL-9000 from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey (amended for baseball, of course).
Let me put it this way, Mr. Selig. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
Most of the time, I dismiss the idea as impractical. My dad is always extolling the virtues of technology. He doesn't know quite how it works but he's more than willing to trust it and let it make his life easier. I, on the other hand, am more like Don Quixote brandishing his sword in a futile, and often comical, battle against the march of progress.
But yesterday after watching umpire Todd Tichenor redefine the strike zone at his whim throughout the game, I began to warm up to the idea of baseball’s version of the HAL-9000 computer calling balls and strikes. One thing’s for sure, HAL would be impartial. He would only call what he was programmed to call and he wouldn’t change the paramaters of his strike zone from one inning to the next, or as Tichenor did last night, from one pitch to the next. That kind of inconsistency just shouldn’t happen.
As HAL would put it, “It can only be attributable to human error.”
I do understand it will take the human element out of the game, but really, do we need it if it’s going to make errors and change the nature of the game and possibly it’s outcome? I saw pitches 6 inches off the plate called as strikes in this last game. Hitters like Kosuke Fukudome were forced to swing at pitches they would normally let go by. While at other times, a pitch seemingly down the middle of the plate would be called a ball. Who knows which pitch was going to catch Tichenor’s fancy that night? The human element took some of the humans, the ones we pay to watch, out of their element today. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming the loss on the umpiring. I’m just saying it’d be nice to give the players a consistent idea of what the strike zone is.
What’s more, you could still technically argue balls and strikes. Can you imagine an argument between Milton Bradley and the HAL-900?
Milton Bradley: What? That pitch was outside! You’ve got to call that a ball!
HAL: I'm sorry, Milton. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Milton Bradley: You’ve got to be kidding me! Are you blind or something?!
HAL: Look Milton, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
Milton Bradley: &#@^!! *&$%@!
HAL: Milton, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
(Bradley then gets escorted off the field after a failed attempt to disconnect HAL)
It works for me. Or maybe I’m just frustrated after losing 4 out of the last 5 to two of the worst teams in baseball. Maybe having HAL umpire the games would have hurt the Cubs as much as it would have helped them. Maybe it wouldn’t have affected how I enjoyed the game. But I don’t think so. I think an infallible umpire would allow me to place the blame right back where it belongs: on the very fallible players, on the human element of the game who we expect to be prone to occasional errors. Those are the kinds of mistakes that should affect the outcome of the game. Let’s let the players decide who wins.
Or as HAL would put it, “This (game) is too important for me to allow you (umpires) to jeopardize it.”
Maybe my dad is right. We've been replacing factory workers with robots for years. We have GPS systems telling us how to find the nearest restaurant. We have ATMs to dispense us money. Maybe it's time baseball and I got with the program.
Still, as we know, HAL eventually tried to hijack the mission. Could it happen in baseball? Could we see technology hijack the game we all love? The truth is I don't know the answer to that question. But if it doesn't work out, we can always pull the plug...right?
“These umpires suck. They should use one of those electronic eyes instead of the umpire”
I immediately think of the ominous words of HAL-9000 from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey (amended for baseball, of course).
Let me put it this way, Mr. Selig. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
Most of the time, I dismiss the idea as impractical. My dad is always extolling the virtues of technology. He doesn't know quite how it works but he's more than willing to trust it and let it make his life easier. I, on the other hand, am more like Don Quixote brandishing his sword in a futile, and often comical, battle against the march of progress.
But yesterday after watching umpire Todd Tichenor redefine the strike zone at his whim throughout the game, I began to warm up to the idea of baseball’s version of the HAL-9000 computer calling balls and strikes. One thing’s for sure, HAL would be impartial. He would only call what he was programmed to call and he wouldn’t change the paramaters of his strike zone from one inning to the next, or as Tichenor did last night, from one pitch to the next. That kind of inconsistency just shouldn’t happen.
As HAL would put it, “It can only be attributable to human error.”
I do understand it will take the human element out of the game, but really, do we need it if it’s going to make errors and change the nature of the game and possibly it’s outcome? I saw pitches 6 inches off the plate called as strikes in this last game. Hitters like Kosuke Fukudome were forced to swing at pitches they would normally let go by. While at other times, a pitch seemingly down the middle of the plate would be called a ball. Who knows which pitch was going to catch Tichenor’s fancy that night? The human element took some of the humans, the ones we pay to watch, out of their element today. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming the loss on the umpiring. I’m just saying it’d be nice to give the players a consistent idea of what the strike zone is.
What’s more, you could still technically argue balls and strikes. Can you imagine an argument between Milton Bradley and the HAL-900?
Milton Bradley: What? That pitch was outside! You’ve got to call that a ball!
HAL: I'm sorry, Milton. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Milton Bradley: You’ve got to be kidding me! Are you blind or something?!
HAL: Look Milton, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
Milton Bradley: &#@^!! *&$%@!
HAL: Milton, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
(Bradley then gets escorted off the field after a failed attempt to disconnect HAL)
It works for me. Or maybe I’m just frustrated after losing 4 out of the last 5 to two of the worst teams in baseball. Maybe having HAL umpire the games would have hurt the Cubs as much as it would have helped them. Maybe it wouldn’t have affected how I enjoyed the game. But I don’t think so. I think an infallible umpire would allow me to place the blame right back where it belongs: on the very fallible players, on the human element of the game who we expect to be prone to occasional errors. Those are the kinds of mistakes that should affect the outcome of the game. Let’s let the players decide who wins.
Or as HAL would put it, “This (game) is too important for me to allow you (umpires) to jeopardize it.”
Maybe my dad is right. We've been replacing factory workers with robots for years. We have GPS systems telling us how to find the nearest restaurant. We have ATMs to dispense us money. Maybe it's time baseball and I got with the program.
Still, as we know, HAL eventually tried to hijack the mission. Could it happen in baseball? Could we see technology hijack the game we all love? The truth is I don't know the answer to that question. But if it doesn't work out, we can always pull the plug...right?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
As Lilly blooms, Zambrano move looms?
Ted Lilly made what was probably his last rehab start in Peoria and pitched 7 shutout innings. He only gave up 3 hits, walked one and struck out 9. It would appear that, even though they were just A ball hitters, Lilly has his good stuff back.
It raises the question of how to rearrange a bullpen that desperately needs a shot in the arm. The two obvious candidates to move are Tom Gorzelanny and Carlos Silva and each has their pros and cons.
Gorzelanny has better stuff and has pitched out of the bullpen more. He made 15 appearances out of the pen in 2009. He is younger and should be able to make the adjustment easier than Silva. The cons are that he is lefty and the Cubs have Grabow, Marshall, and Russell all playing significant roles from the left side. It would seem his move would mean that the Cubs would use 4 lefties. More likely, however, a Gorzelanny move to the bullpen would signal that Russell will draw the short straw and head back to AAA. The net gain, since Russell has done well for the most part, would be insignificant.
Silva is righty and has good control -- two areas where the Cubs have struggled. Samardzija and Berg have not been good thus far and neither has shown great command. This is not a good thing when your closer, Carlos Marmol, struggles with control too. Too many people on the basepaths late in the game isn't really a good idea if you're trying to win close ballgames. Silva would help curb that problem and his shift to the bullpen would signal bad news for either Smardzija or Berg. On the other hand, Silva, Dempster and Wells have been the Cubs best starters so far and breaking up the rotation - which has been the Cubs strength so far - may not be the best way to go. And the reality is that teams don't like putting big salaries in the bullpen unless they are closing games.
The Cubs could think outside the box and move Zambrano to the bullpen where he can channel his aggressiveness and energy into one or two innings. We'd still have some control issues, but there is no question Zambrano would be a shot in the arm for our bullpen. The question is what would Z think about it? Should we even care? He hasn't pitched out of the bullpen since 2002 and entered the season as the Cubs "ace" and highest paid pitcher, though you could make a good argument that Dempster and Lilly have been better pitchers over the past 2+ years. I kind of like this idea, but it may not be practical in today's game of big dollars and big egos.
The last option is a trade. The Cubs could deal one of their starters for some bullpen help. Of course, the guy everyone will ask for is probably Randy Wells since he is the youngest, makes the least money, and would be under a team's control over the next several years before he hits free agency. Dempster and Lilly might draw interest but they are probably our best pitchers at this point. Silva has been good but he makes a lot of money for a bottom of the rotation starter and I doubt most teams have been convinced 2 starts into the season that he is anything more than that.
That leaves us back to Zambrano again. He has the big name and the big talent to draw some interest, particularly from New York and possibly from some west coast teams. Unfortunately, he has a big contract with a no-trade clause that makes moving him difficult. The Cubs would undoubtedly have to pay a large portion of his contract and receive little in return -- or they can trade him for another big contract to help defray the cost. It's unlikely, but it's not impossible.
Could the Cubs obtain an overpaid reliever such as Francisco Rodriguez from the Mets? Rodriguez may be a luxury on a team that is probably an also-ran in the NL East. He is still good, but he is becoming less dominant. His K rate has been in steady decline:
2007: 12.03 K/9
2008: 10.14
2009: 9.66
It's still good, but coupled with a rising walk rate - up over 5 last year and early this year, it spells trouble. Moreoever, he would bring the same control issues that our relievers already have. The positives? We get out from under Z's huge contract, we get a veteran reliever who can slip in the closer role should Marmol falter, and his K rate, while down, still indicates his stuff is top of the line and should help him overcome his walk rates to some degree. The relievers the Cubs have now have been walking people but also pitch more to contact -- a bad combination late in the game. I think it's a deal that makes some sense for both sides. The Mets would have an intriguing Venezuelan 1-2 punch at the top of their rotation in Santana and Zambrano to go with the rising Mike Pelfrey and future star Jenrry Mejia. That would give them something to build on. If you subtract Rodriguez's contract from Zambranos, the Mets would be getting Zambrano for about 5 years and about 45M (including a 2012 buyout**) -- which is a lot more reasonable. They could even throw in Luis Castillo (while we'd probably have to throw in Fontenot) and reduce Zambrano's cost to about 5 years and about 40 millon. That is a pretty good price for a pitcher of Zambrano's caliber. The Cubs, in the meantime, would get veteran bullpen help and, just as importantly, get out of a huge contract in the process.
__________________________________________________
** Note: Per Cot's Baseball Contracts, Rodriguez has a vesting option in 2012 that could be worth a whopping 17.5M/yr in 2012 guaranteed if...
55 games finished in 2011, and
100 games finished in 2010-11, and
doctors declare Rodriguez healthy after 2011
If he doesn't meet this criteria, the Mets can buy his last year out for 3.5M
However, if he's setting up for Carlos Marmol it'd be difficult for him to finish that many games, so the Cubs should be safe...I hope. The Mets, on the other hand, are far more likely to get stuck paying him the 17.5M at his current pace...seems to me like they should be motivated to get rid of him before this happens. If you factor in the probability that his 2012 option will vest, the Mets could get Zambrano at a net cost of about 20M over 5 years. However, Z also has a vesting option, which would bring that total back up around 40M over 5 years again. Confused? So am I. Still a pitcher of Zambrano's caliber at 8-9M a year may be enticing enough for the Mets to make a deal.
____________________________________________________
So will it happen? I can say with almost 100% certaintly that it will not, but it makes some sense if you ask me. The Mets get a potential #2 starter for as low as 4-5M/yr and the Cubs would save anywhere from 23M to 51.5M and get a bullpen arm. Win-win, right? Well, maybe. You'd be taking a risk that Silva can continue to pitch well and that Lilly stays healthy. But you'd also be creating future flexibility for Andrew Cashner who, by the way, had another great performance at AA last night. He now stands at 1-0, 2.60 ERA, 4 walks, 25 Ks in 17 innings. Hitters are batting .119 against him in 3 starts(and no, that's not a typo). Jay Jackson the Cubs second best starting pitching prospect is doing well at AAA as well. So my feeling is take the chance and, in the worst case scenario, you've at least created room in the rotation for our two top pitching prospects and save about 23M. Best case scenario, you save 50M+ and patch our bullpen hole for 2010-2011.
What do you all think?
It raises the question of how to rearrange a bullpen that desperately needs a shot in the arm. The two obvious candidates to move are Tom Gorzelanny and Carlos Silva and each has their pros and cons.
Gorzelanny has better stuff and has pitched out of the bullpen more. He made 15 appearances out of the pen in 2009. He is younger and should be able to make the adjustment easier than Silva. The cons are that he is lefty and the Cubs have Grabow, Marshall, and Russell all playing significant roles from the left side. It would seem his move would mean that the Cubs would use 4 lefties. More likely, however, a Gorzelanny move to the bullpen would signal that Russell will draw the short straw and head back to AAA. The net gain, since Russell has done well for the most part, would be insignificant.
Silva is righty and has good control -- two areas where the Cubs have struggled. Samardzija and Berg have not been good thus far and neither has shown great command. This is not a good thing when your closer, Carlos Marmol, struggles with control too. Too many people on the basepaths late in the game isn't really a good idea if you're trying to win close ballgames. Silva would help curb that problem and his shift to the bullpen would signal bad news for either Smardzija or Berg. On the other hand, Silva, Dempster and Wells have been the Cubs best starters so far and breaking up the rotation - which has been the Cubs strength so far - may not be the best way to go. And the reality is that teams don't like putting big salaries in the bullpen unless they are closing games.
The Cubs could think outside the box and move Zambrano to the bullpen where he can channel his aggressiveness and energy into one or two innings. We'd still have some control issues, but there is no question Zambrano would be a shot in the arm for our bullpen. The question is what would Z think about it? Should we even care? He hasn't pitched out of the bullpen since 2002 and entered the season as the Cubs "ace" and highest paid pitcher, though you could make a good argument that Dempster and Lilly have been better pitchers over the past 2+ years. I kind of like this idea, but it may not be practical in today's game of big dollars and big egos.
The last option is a trade. The Cubs could deal one of their starters for some bullpen help. Of course, the guy everyone will ask for is probably Randy Wells since he is the youngest, makes the least money, and would be under a team's control over the next several years before he hits free agency. Dempster and Lilly might draw interest but they are probably our best pitchers at this point. Silva has been good but he makes a lot of money for a bottom of the rotation starter and I doubt most teams have been convinced 2 starts into the season that he is anything more than that.
That leaves us back to Zambrano again. He has the big name and the big talent to draw some interest, particularly from New York and possibly from some west coast teams. Unfortunately, he has a big contract with a no-trade clause that makes moving him difficult. The Cubs would undoubtedly have to pay a large portion of his contract and receive little in return -- or they can trade him for another big contract to help defray the cost. It's unlikely, but it's not impossible.
Could the Cubs obtain an overpaid reliever such as Francisco Rodriguez from the Mets? Rodriguez may be a luxury on a team that is probably an also-ran in the NL East. He is still good, but he is becoming less dominant. His K rate has been in steady decline:
2007: 12.03 K/9
2008: 10.14
2009: 9.66
It's still good, but coupled with a rising walk rate - up over 5 last year and early this year, it spells trouble. Moreoever, he would bring the same control issues that our relievers already have. The positives? We get out from under Z's huge contract, we get a veteran reliever who can slip in the closer role should Marmol falter, and his K rate, while down, still indicates his stuff is top of the line and should help him overcome his walk rates to some degree. The relievers the Cubs have now have been walking people but also pitch more to contact -- a bad combination late in the game. I think it's a deal that makes some sense for both sides. The Mets would have an intriguing Venezuelan 1-2 punch at the top of their rotation in Santana and Zambrano to go with the rising Mike Pelfrey and future star Jenrry Mejia. That would give them something to build on. If you subtract Rodriguez's contract from Zambranos, the Mets would be getting Zambrano for about 5 years and about 45M (including a 2012 buyout**) -- which is a lot more reasonable. They could even throw in Luis Castillo (while we'd probably have to throw in Fontenot) and reduce Zambrano's cost to about 5 years and about 40 millon. That is a pretty good price for a pitcher of Zambrano's caliber. The Cubs, in the meantime, would get veteran bullpen help and, just as importantly, get out of a huge contract in the process.
__________________________________________________
** Note: Per Cot's Baseball Contracts, Rodriguez has a vesting option in 2012 that could be worth a whopping 17.5M/yr in 2012 guaranteed if...
55 games finished in 2011, and
100 games finished in 2010-11, and
doctors declare Rodriguez healthy after 2011
If he doesn't meet this criteria, the Mets can buy his last year out for 3.5M
However, if he's setting up for Carlos Marmol it'd be difficult for him to finish that many games, so the Cubs should be safe...I hope. The Mets, on the other hand, are far more likely to get stuck paying him the 17.5M at his current pace...seems to me like they should be motivated to get rid of him before this happens. If you factor in the probability that his 2012 option will vest, the Mets could get Zambrano at a net cost of about 20M over 5 years. However, Z also has a vesting option, which would bring that total back up around 40M over 5 years again. Confused? So am I. Still a pitcher of Zambrano's caliber at 8-9M a year may be enticing enough for the Mets to make a deal.
____________________________________________________
So will it happen? I can say with almost 100% certaintly that it will not, but it makes some sense if you ask me. The Mets get a potential #2 starter for as low as 4-5M/yr and the Cubs would save anywhere from 23M to 51.5M and get a bullpen arm. Win-win, right? Well, maybe. You'd be taking a risk that Silva can continue to pitch well and that Lilly stays healthy. But you'd also be creating future flexibility for Andrew Cashner who, by the way, had another great performance at AA last night. He now stands at 1-0, 2.60 ERA, 4 walks, 25 Ks in 17 innings. Hitters are batting .119 against him in 3 starts(and no, that's not a typo). Jay Jackson the Cubs second best starting pitching prospect is doing well at AAA as well. So my feeling is take the chance and, in the worst case scenario, you've at least created room in the rotation for our two top pitching prospects and save about 23M. Best case scenario, you save 50M+ and patch our bullpen hole for 2010-2011.
What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
