Chicago Cubs Hot Stove Offseason Thread

[DewsSox79]

those statistics are not obsolete, may rather not be the "best" to evaluate but neither is sabre. you are using a 18 balls or whatever example that in fact you have no proof happened, just sputtering out thoughts with no real substance.

you are basically saying that vasquez 5.32 era is due to the team behind him, so i guess era in your mind is an obsolete stat as well. because by your merits you cannot judge an pitcher on era.

 

[Lefty]

Except you can't go off of one season, for the guy.

Jesus Christ.



Look, his career GB/FB ratio is below 1, something like 0.96 or something. What does that mean? He gives up a lot of fly balls. What does that mean? It means his numbers (specifically his HR rate) are more open to intrusion by the park he plays in. How does that apply/explain Vazquez over his career? He has doubly capitalized when playing in pitcher's parks (mainly in Montreal, where he played a majority of his career, as well as his one season with the braves, as well as the luck that befell him in Chicago for three whole seasons.

How do we know he got lucky in Chicago? He posted GB/FB rates of 0.98, 0.92 and 0.92 (two out of three below his career average, and only one slightly above), yet had HR/FB rates of 9.3, 11.0, and 9.8 respectively (two out of three significantly below league average, one slightly below). How is this luck? Because GB/FB ratio is the element that gives pitchers some control over their BABIP (grounders are less-likely to turn into hits than fly balls and line drives), but it has been demonstrated that pitchers have very little influence (none really) over what happens to a fly ball once it is put in play; they have not demonstrated an ability to keep flies from turning into outs more than HR's, vice versa, and so on. Thus, HR/FB rates are a microcosm of BABIP, as it pertains to fly balls: pitchers have little-to-no influence over these rates, and will therefore tend to regress to some mean (I think it's around 13%, last time I checked) over time.

So then, given Vazquez's 10.8% HR/FB rate over the list 5 seasons (which even contains two very HR-friendly parks for 4 out of the 5 years), we can reasonably expect his HR/FB rate to regress towards the mean given above, and perhaps a bit beyond, based on luck alone. Factoring into that equation the fact that Vazquez could be pitching in yet another HR haven, that regression (and the more HR's and thus worse performance that comes along with it) becomes even more of a probability than it was before.

At Wrigley, he will get the occasional benefit of the wind blowing in, too.

Yeah, that wind has certainly helped the park factors for Wrigley over the last three years. Get real.

However, if you look at his FIP, his worse season was last year.

Yes, and FIP is based in-part on HR's, which I have already demonstrated to you are not necessarily under a pitcher's direct control, xFIP has the same problems associated with it. And even then, look at how bad last season was! There's more reason than ever to believe that that kind of regression will continue! It would be better if you actually read up on the terms in which you speak.

If he goes from the hardest division, to the easiest division,

My God, you cling to this notion as if it was the Holy Grail of Baseball Truisms or something. Look:

1) The NL and AL were comparable offensively last year, and have been nudging closer over the last few.

2) Somehow, despite playing in the "easiest" division in baseball, Wrigley still rated out as an offense-friendly park, and the Cubs still lost the division by a huge margin.

I don't see that continuing.

Of course you wouldn't, that's because you know very little about which you speak.

 

[Captain Obvious]

those statistics are not obsolete, may rather not be the "best" to evaluate but neither is sabre. you are using a 18 balls or whatever example that in fact you have no proof happened, just sputtering out thoughts with no real substance.

you are basically saying that vasquez 5.32 era is due to the team behind him, so i guess era in your mind is an obsolete stat as well. because by your merits you cannot judge an pitcher on era.

No, we don't know what happened. The only way to know what happened would be to see every start of his. That's why we use stats. But as JoeHawks or Keith posted, look at the other stats, their defense is middle of the pack.

That's exactly what I'm saying. ERA is not a good stat to use to gauge a pitcher.

Jesus Christ.



Look, his career GB/FB ratio is below 1, something like 0.96 or something. What does that mean? He gives up a lot of fly balls. What does that mean? It means his numbers (specifically his HR rate) are more open to intrusion by the park he plays in. How does that apply/explain Vazquez over his career? He has doubly capitalized when playing in pitcher's parks (mainly in Montreal, where he played a majority of his career, as well as his one season with the braves, as well as the luck that befell him in Chicago for three whole seasons.

How do we know he got lucky in Chicago? He posted GB/FB rates of 0.98, 0.92 and 0.92 (two out of three below his career average, and only one slightly above), yet had HR/FB rates of 9.3, 11.0, and 9.8 respectively (two out of three significantly below league average, one slightly below). How is this luck? Because GB/FB ratio is the element that gives pitchers some control over their BABIP (grounders are less-likely to turn into hits than fly balls and line drives), but it has been demonstrated that pitchers have very little influence (none really) over what happens to a fly ball once it is put in play; they have not demonstrated an ability to keep flies from turning into outs more than HR's, vice versa, and so on. Thus, HR/FB rates are a microcosm of BABIP, as it pertains to fly balls: pitchers have little-to-no influence over these rates, and will therefore tend to regress to some mean (I think it's around 13%, last time I checked) over time.

So then, given Vazquez's 10.8% HR/FB rate over the list 5 seasons (which even contains two very HR-friendly parks for 4 out of the 5 years), we can reasonably expect his HR/FB rate to regress towards the mean given above, and perhaps a bit beyond, based on luck alone. Factoring into that equation the fact that Vazquez could be pitching in yet another HR haven, that regression (and the more HR's and thus worse performance that comes along with it) becomes even more of a probability than it was before.



Yeah, that wind has certainly helped the park factors for Wrigley over the last three years. Get real.



Yes, and FIP is based in-part on HR's, which I have already demonstrated to you are not necessarily under a pitcher's direct control, xFIP has the same problems associated with it. And even then, look at how bad last season was! There's more reason than ever to believe that that kind of regression will continue! It would be better if you actually read up on the terms in which you speak.



My God, you cling to this notion as if it was the Holy Grail of Baseball Truisms or something. Look:

1) The NL and AL were comparable offensively last year, and have been nudging closer over the last few.

2) Somehow, despite playing in the "easiest" division in baseball, Wrigley still rated out as an offense-friendly park, and the Cubs still lost the division by a huge margin.



Of course you wouldn't, that's because you know very little about which you speak.

Ted Lilly. He's a perfect example of a flyball pitcher having success in Wrigley. He had the best season of his career at Wrigley. Now, I'm not trying to say Vazquez will be great, but he can be a very good pitcher for us.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the wind factors in... every year. It's almost as if there is wind every year. Crazy, I know.

I didn't even say anything about AL vs. NL. Just because we were playing in the easiet division, does not translate into lots and lots of runs. What the Cubs did last year does not have any effect on how Vazquez will play with them this coming year.

Okay, Lefty, yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about, right. Because it is so fucking hard to see that the AL East is the best division in baseball.

 

[Lefty]

Ted Lilly. He's a perfect example of a flyball pitcher having success in Wrigley.

Wait a minute...didn't you say something completely in contradiction with this sentiment not too far back? Wait, for it, wait for it, yeah you did:

Right, because in baseball, 1 is always a good sample size...

He had the best season of his career at Wrigley.

Hmmm....I also seem to remember you saying something on this issue, too....Yep, here it is:

Except you can't go off of one season, for the guy.

What's really funny is that these quotes are from your posts in this very thread. You can't even make it back out into the general Cubs Section before you start contradicting yourself with asinine arguments. Bravo. :lmao:

Now, I'm not trying to say Vazquez will be great, but he can be a very good pitcher for us.

Yeah, and he could be the Comeback Player OTY, he could even come back to win the NL Cy Young. That doesn't make those things probable. What is probable, though, is regression towards the mean on his part, and thus more home runs based on luck alone, and more home runs just because he's pitching in a hitter's park, and the numbers dictate as much (at least, for those of us that can read and think critically).

Or, maybe, just maybe, the wind factors in... every year. It's almost as if there is wind every year. Crazy, I know.

Well, since you just admitted that the wind is a constant every year (in a rather poor attempt at sarcasm, but hey, I've come to expect no better from you), then the effects of the wind that you want so badly to cling to will be present in ever instance of Wrigley's park factor, meaning we don't have to make a special exception for it. And guess what? It still boosts home runs by a good amount above the average, even with the "every year" wind. Putz.

I didn't even say anything about AL vs. NL. Just because we were playing in the easiet division, does not translate into lots and lots of runs.

Look, I told Rush I'd cool it on smacking around the idiots on this board, but your ass is pushing it. Anyway, here is why the AL/NL thing is relevant: like it or not, teams from every division in each league play roughly the league average of teams in their own respective league each year (this is why no stats have a "divisional" adjustment, just a "league" one, and even then that might become unnecessary). That means that a team from the top-heavy AL-East will play about what the AL league average is in terms of competition (because there's still a lot of crap, even in the AL East, and especially so in other AL divisions). Likewise, a team from the NL Central will play the rough equivalent of the NL league average team. Then, since the AL and NL were comparable last year, there is no need to adjust for the competition played in one destination versus another, because there is no inherent difference: the player will play against roughly the league average competition wherever he ends up, and because there is little-to-no change in league average ability between the two leagues, there is no difference in competition.

^^^^Think real long and real hard about that (I know it's hard)

 

[DewsSox79]

full post will not be deleted, just any of the name calling is edited.

dewey

 

[Captain Obvious]

Hold on here, Lefty.

With the HR/FB rate, I responded to Javy's stats last year in relation to his stats overall. I don't understand when talking about one player, you can say that he will regress toward the league average. He's not the league, he's that one player.

 

[Lefty]

Hold on here, Lefty.

With the HR/FB rate, I responded to Javy's stats last year in relation to his stats overall. I don't understand when talking about one player, you can say that he will regress toward the league average. He's not the league, he's that one player.

With respect to HR/FB rate (as well as BABIP), since players have little-to-no influence on the event, as the number of trials become larger and larger, the chance that any given group of trials regresses towards some "true" mean becomes larger and larger. Think of it like this: if you flip a coin ten times, you could very easily end up with more heads than tails, let's say eight heads and two tails. At that point, you could say "I have an 80% Heads Success Rate", and that assertion would agree with what we observed: you flipped a coin ten times, and got eight heads versus two tails. But is that a skill? Did you really influence anything? More than likely you didn't, you were just the beneficiary of the outcome of a group of random events.

However, the next time you flip a coin ten times, chances are you're not going to get eight heads and two tails again. In fact, as you flip a coin in groups of ten more and more, the chances mount that you will decidedly not flip your Heads Success Rate, and that number will begin to regress the mean Heads Success Rate, which is 0.5.

The case with HR/FB ratio and BABIP are similar: pitchers have little-to-no control over what the rates actually are, so over time, we can expect those numbers to regress to some mean value, which can easily be determined by summing up the aggregate of players over multiple seasons, because if they all have no impact on that outcome, then the sheer number of trials provided by the aggregate should get us close to the true mean value.

 

[Captain Obvious]

With respect to HR/FB rate (as well as BABIP), since players have little-to-no influence on the event, as the number of trials become larger and larger, the chance that any given group of trials regresses towards some "true" mean becomes larger and larger. Think of it like this: if you flip a coin ten times, you could very easily end up with more heads than tails, let's say eight heads and two tails. At that point, you could say "I have an 80% Heads Success Rate", and that assertion would agree with what we observed: you flipped a coin ten times, and got eight heads versus two tails. But is that a skill? Did you really influence anything? More than likely you didn't, you were just the beneficiary of the outcome of a group of random events.

However, the next time you flip a coin ten times, chances are you're not going to get eight heads and two tails again. In fact, as you flip a coin in groups of ten more and more, the chances mount that you will decidedly not flip your Heads Success Rate, and that number will begin to regress the mean Heads Success Rate, which is 0.5.

The case with HR/FB ratio and BABIP are similar: pitchers have little-to-no control over what the rates actually are, so over time, we can expect those numbers to regress to some mean value, which can easily be determined by summing up the aggregate of players over multiple seasons, because if they all have no impact on that outcome, then the sheer number of trials provided by the aggregate should get us close to the true mean value.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I disagree. With the coins, both coins are the same, with pitchers, there are so many variables between pitcher to pitcher(time from mound to plate, age, weight, height, arm speed), so many different things that go into effect.

It is that reason that I think that Javy will return to something closer to his 07-09 numbers.

Now then, you said that the percentage is 13%. Let's say he does put up that mean next year.... he's still improving, because last year he had 14%. I don't want to look up the other numbers. But, I am going to assume that his other numbers were also so bad that even hitting that mean, which in the past he has been better than, he will also improve next year.

 

[Jntg4]

How much the Vazquez want again? And I'm glad I don't see any of these posts right now. :crazydance:

 

[Pre]

Just now popped into this thread and realized that people were seriously arguing for Javier Vazquez.

We're talking about a player who, since leaving Montreal after the 2003 season, has had five mediocre-to-bad seasons, one average season, and one really good season. Oh, and he's 34.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Just now popped into this thread and realized that people were seriously arguing for Javier Vazquez.

We're talking about a player who, since leaving Montreal after the 2003 season, has had five mediocre-to-bad seasons, one average season, and one really good season. Oh, and he's 34.

We're talking about the pitcher from 2006-2009 was worth over 21 wins.

 

[Pre]

We're talking about the pitcher from 2006-2009 was worth over 21 wins.

I assume you're basing this off of WAR?

The idea that one can quantify how many wins a player is worth over a season is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. There's so many tiny factors that go into winning a baseball game.

Javier Vazquez, outside of his 2009 season (and perhaps the 2007 season), is a very, very mediocre pitcher. And at his age, things are only going to get worse.

 

[Capt. Serious]

Vazquez not Vasquez.

 

[Pre]

Fixed, thanks for the correction.

 

[Jntg4]

Vazquez not Vasquez.

Real: Vazquez
Pre: Vasquez
Waldo: Naquez

He goes by many names I guess.

 

[Captain Obvious]

I assume you're basing this off of WAR?

The idea that one can quantify how many wins a player is worth over a season is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. There's so many tiny factors that go into winning a baseball game.

Javier Vazquez, outside of his 2009 season (and perhaps the 2007 season), is a very, very mediocre pitcher. And at his age, things are only going to get worse.

Yes, I'm basing this off of WAR, which for pitchers, is based off of FIP. If you are not familiar with FIP, it's probably the best stat to base a pitcher off of.

You're right though, there are so many tiny factors that go into winning a baseball game, such as offense, defense, management, weather, etc., but we're trying to figure out how good Javy is, so why not use ERA? Because it takes into effect so many other things than just the pitcher's performance.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

so this naquez guy...

 

[DewsSox79]

Yes, I'm basing this off of WAR, which for pitchers, is based off of FIP. If you are not familiar with FIP, it's probably the best stat to base a pitcher off of.

You're right though, there are so many tiny factors that go into winning a baseball game, such as offense, defense, management, weather, etc., but we're trying to figure out how good Javy is, so why not use ERA? Because it takes into effect so many other things than just the pitcher's performance.

but you will be the first one to point out a cub pitchers low era.

 

[Jntg4]

but you will be the first one to point out a cub pitchers low era.

Their "low" ERA. Wells sucks, 3.33 (Z) is good, but not ourtstandings, Dempst was decent, Silva sucked in the second half snd ended up in the 4's. I was more impressed with the back end of the pen than the rest of the staff.

 

[Capt. Serious]

But according to CO, Wells was "unlucky".