It's Another VogelBomb! 2013 Minor League Thread

[CSF77]

He looked over matched, inconcisaint and his 17 losses speak volume. Feldman kept it together and increased in value. Baker looked good in his starts. Wood took a step up. Garza looked like an ace. Frik'n Rusin looked better than he should have. Jackson came in as a .500 pitcher and lost 17 games. Enuf said. No need to perfume a turd. When he can pull .500 then he is back to being a back of the rotation over paid starter.

 

[beckdawg]

He looked over matched, inconcisaint and his 17 losses speak volume. Feldman kept it together and increased in value. Baker looked good in his starts. Wood took a step up. Garza looked like an ace. Frik'n Rusin looked better than he should have. Jackson came in as a .500 pitcher and lost 17 games. Enuf said. No need to perfume a turd. When he can pull .500 then he is back to being a back of the rotation over paid starter.

Eh... the metrics suggest Jackson was better than he looks. His xFIP was 3.86. I'm not trying to say he'll ever be a great pitcher. But $13 mil isn't really that expensive for someone who can reliably give you IPs.

 

[CSF77]

Eh... the metrics suggest Jackson was better than he looks. His xFIP was 3.86. I'm not trying to say he'll ever be a great pitcher. But $13 mil isn't really that expensive for someone who can reliably give you IPs.

I look at metrics as something to view vs judge a player by.

What matters to me is:

Feldman: 7-6 3.46 ERA 1.14 WHIP in 15 starts. BA against: .234
Wood: 9-12 3.11 ERA 1.15 WHIP in 32 starts BA against: .222
Garza: 6-1 3.17 ERA 1.14 WHIP in 11 starts BA against .229
Arreta: 4-2 3.66 ERA 1.12 WHIP in 9 starts BA against .185

See something in common here. WHIP is down and ERA is down.

Shark: 8-13 4.34 ERA 1.35 WHIP in 33 starts BA against .255
Rusin: 2-6 3.93 ERA 1.36 WHIP in 13 starts BA against .261
Jackson 8-18 4.98 ERA 1.46 WHIP in 31 starts BA against .281


So as we are seeing these 3 had WHIP's over 1.35. All had ERA at 4.0 or highter.

Now you can metric this or that but the bottom line is guys got on base and they scored with the same D behind them and playeing the same schedual.

Metrics are a tool so use as such but don't use it to justify poor performance.

Fact is they over paid for performance that was worse than Feldman at 2x the price.

 

[beckdawg]

I look at metrics as something to view vs judge a player by.

What matters to me is:

Feldman: 7-6 3.46 ERA 1.14 WHIP in 15 starts. BA against: .234
Wood: 9-12 3.11 ERA 1.15 WHIP in 32 starts BA against: .222
Garza: 6-1 3.17 ERA 1.14 WHIP in 11 starts BA against .229
Arreta: 4-2 3.66 ERA 1.12 WHIP in 9 starts BA against .185

See something in common here. WHIP is down and ERA is down.

Shark: 8-13 4.34 ERA 1.35 WHIP in 33 starts BA against .255
Rusin: 2-6 3.93 ERA 1.36 WHIP in 13 starts BA against .261
Jackson 8-18 4.98 ERA 1.46 WHIP in 31 starts BA against .281


So as we are seeing these 3 had WHIP's over 1.35. All had ERA at 4.0 or highter.

Now you can metric this or that but the bottom line is guys got on base and they scored with the same D behind them and playeing the same schedual.

Metrics are a tool so use as such but don't use it to justify poor performance.

Fact is they over paid for performance that was worse than Feldman at 2x the price.

Fine but the entire point of FIP is the fact that people get on and it's often not the pitchers fault. This is evident by the fact his BABIP was .322 which was up 14 points from his career average and 22 points from the average player. Also, I still wouldn't call $13 mil overpaying for someone who gives you 170+ innings every year. The reason Feldman got much less is because he has thrown 170+ twice(including this year). As I said, having someone who you know will give you 170 innings no matter what has value. For example, they signed Baker hoping he'd be something at $5.5 mil and he didn't pitch an inning. Also, Garza's a good pitcher but throwing only 155.1 IP gave him 2.2 WAR vs Jackson's 2.

But to get back to my point on metrics, compare Jackson's year this year with his best year in 2009. His K/9 and BB/9 were higher and lower respectively with fewer HR/9. You're comments about WHIP tie directly into this. He wasn't walking more guys. They were just getting more hits than usual. The metrics say he should have pitched better this year than that. However, his .276 BABIP and 76.7 % left on base in 2009 were probably the reason for his ERA 3.62. This means that more people than normal were getting on base and when they were getting on base they weren't getting stranded. Some of this could be on him but it also very well could be on bad defense.

As for the "good guys" you cite, Wood had a xFIP of 4.50 and a BABIP of .248(16 points lower than his career). Feldman had xFIP of 3.96 and a .258 BABIP(41 point lower than his career). Arrieta had a 4.51 xFIP and .190 BABIP(94 points lower than his career). Garza had .266 BABIP(22 points lower than his career) and 3.82 xFIP. As you can see there's a rather large difference in the amount of balls in play. Garza being the highest at .266 is 56 points lower than Jackson. Some of that could be Jackson but considering the league average is .300 I'd say all of those guy are likely to regress toward the mean next year which is what their xFIP is suggesting. Every one of them were better than their numbers suggest.

None of the metrics change the fact that this year wasn't a good one for Jackson. I'm simply suggesting there's reasons to believe he'll improve next year as well as suggesting it's far to early to count his contract as a bad FA deal. Case in point, Feldman in 2012 had a 5.09 ERA and a .318 BABIP. His xFIP that year was 3.87. Arrieta had a .320 BABIP and 6.20 ERA in 2012 with a xFIP of 3.65. So, it's pretty silly to condemn him when pitchers you cite as being decent had the exact same issues the year before.

 

[CSF77]

As for the "good guys" you cite, Wood had a xFIP of 4.50 and a BABIP of .248(16 points lower than his career). Feldman had xFIP of 3.96 and a .258 BABIP(41 point lower than his career). Arrieta had a 4.51 xFIP and .190 BABIP(94 points lower than his career). Garza had .266 BABIP(22 points lower than his career) and 3.82 xFIP. As you can see there's a rather large difference in the amount of balls in play. Garza being the highest at .266 is 56 points lower than Jackson. Some of that could be Jackson but considering the league average is .300 I'd say all of those guy are likely to regress toward the mean next year which is what their xFIP is suggesting. Every one of them were better than their numbers suggest.

Those are just tools to use in the end.

Ok you can say that by this formula Jackson "should have had better luck" But the reality is he didn't.

That is the problem with the game today. People think they can use math to figure it out.

Reality is the pitch missed his location and paid for it.

I don't know how many times I've said this. but here it goes.

Dale put this out:

What Dale and Bosio were doing was they were scouting the hitters and finding their weak zones in their swings. Evey hitter has known sweet spots and cold spots.

So with this info they would have the pitchers attack those weak spots and Dale used shifts to position the IF to cover the areas that the hitter most likely would hit the ball using this weak zone method. That is why they had some funky shifts going on.

Feldman/Malhom/Wood bought into it and they found success in the system.

As we saw by production they guys that did not find success in the system.

I'd go further and say that Arreta bought into it also and also found success.

That is something I'm not happy with the turn over to be honest. I liked what Dale was doing as a IF coach with Bosio. It was working. They just needed a better manager but retain Dale's system.

 

[beckdawg]

Those are just tools to use in the end. Ok you can say that by this formula Jackson "should have had better luck" But the reality is he didn't. That is the problem with the game today. People think they can use math to figure it out.

Metrics aren't a guarantee of success and I have never said they were. But that doesn't mean they are irrelevant for predicting future success/failure. The cubs used them with Feldman and Arrieta. They saw two players who's metrics said they pitched better than their numbers suggest and acquired them. Both of their 2012 years look remarkably similar to Jacksons 2013 no?

Also, I really think you are really undervaluing a reliable starter. I would direct you to this link which shows the people who've averaged 150+ IP/year over the last 4 years sorted by WAR. Garza is clearly a better pitcher than Jackson but only has 3.3 WAR over the past 2 years vs 4.2 for Jackson who had 2 arguably disappointing years. Stephen Strasburg is worlds better than Jackson but he missed a full season to tommy john surgery and only put up 10.8 WAR over that same 4 year period. Both Garza and Strasburg are better but if they are on the DL they aren't doing anything to help the team.

That's not me cherry picking to show a good year for Jackson either. He had two decent years at 3.5 WAR and two crummy years at 2 and 2.2. Jackson is a reliably mediocre. But he is reliable. He's had 7 straight years of 160+ IP which was basically when he finally stuck at the MLB level. And even if it's mediocre reliability in the tune of a 4-4.50 ERA it's better than a replacement level guy from AAA. As I've said that has value.

Is it that difficult to believe get back to the 4ish ERA in those 3.5 WAR seasons and that his xFIP suggests his ERA should have been this year? He was there in 2011 and 2012. Is it that difficult to believe he can put up 3 WAR/year over the next 3 years? If he does, he wouldn't be a great bargain like Feldman was this year but he's well worth $13 mil a year. To illustrate my point, compare Jackson to say Mark Buehrle who's had 11.6 WAR over the past 4 years and is making $14.5 mil/year. He's yet another guy who's a reliable inning eatter(13 straight years of 200+ IP) and has a 4 ERA over that same 4 year period. Dan Haren is making $13 mil/year with a 4 ERA over that period. I can cite other examples but that's basically the going rate for a guy like Jackson on the FA market.

It's not enough to be a good player. You have to stay on the field. If all they get out of Jackson is a 4.50 ERA guy and 170+ IP each of the 4 years of his deal I am willing to bet the FO is fine with it. That may not be enough for you but having to elevate prospects because of injuries starts their service timer and leads to quicker arbitration which costs the team more money.

 

[CSF77]

His IP put up his ERA near 5. Hitters hit .280 off of him. It resulted in 18 losses.

You can say his value was in his IP.

I say that those IP were wasted IP.

If it was a common trend where every starter performed below their normal production then I would blame Bosio and Dale.

But this was not true

Why did Marmol fail but a lesser talented Gregg find success? Pitch location.

Why did Feldman find success with a fastball that did not break 90 Mph? Pitch location.

Same with Maholm pitch location.


It really comes down to hitting the target.


The whole using FIP etc to me are tools to position your D. Using hot and cold charts same thing. Areas to attack. But the pitcher has to hit his spots.

My main point is they spend 52 mil on performance they could have gotten out of Rusin.

Then they turn around and get better than expected performance out of Maholm and Feldman.


So why is this? I think you answered this question. The numbers suggested that they were better and they paid less for solid returns on the dollar.

Then Jackson was a knee jerk reaction after they got snubbed by Sanchez to pacify the season ticket holders.


So what is learned here?

I would say what has worked is educated gambles like Maholm, Feldman, Schierholtz are solid investments. Knee jerk reactions sets you back.

 

[beckdawg]

His IP put up his ERA near 5. Hitters hit .280 off of him. It resulted in 18 losses. You can say his value was in his IP. I say that those IP were wasted IP.

Perhaps but like I said this was 1 year of a 4 year deal.

The whole using FIP etc to me are tools to position your D. Using hot and cold charts same thing. Areas to attack. But the pitcher has to hit his spots.

I don't think you understand the concept of FIP. It's fielding independent pitching. In other words, it's attempting to measure ERA without defense. It's not something you use to position your defense.

Then Jackson was a knee jerk reaction after they got snubbed by Sanchez to pacify the season ticket holders.

No, I'd say he was more of a known value they picked up in case their gambles on Baker, Feldman and Wood didn't work out. They didn't know any of those players were going to be A) healthy and B) effective. Baker and Feldman were coming off injuries and Wood had never pitched more than 156 innings. If you don't sign Jackson and those guys didn't work out look how horrible the rotation would have been. This is my point about reliability. Also, don't forget that Garza had question marks coming into the season too. So, you run the risk of having 1 pitcher(Shark) and filling 4 slots with AAA guys of which we know the Cubs aren't strong.

I mean look, I'm not going to sit here and say Jackson had a good year because he didn't. However, there's reason to believe he'll pitch better next year just like there was reason to believe Feldman and Arrieta would pitch better in 2013. If he pitches as well as he did in 2011-2012 and as well as his xFIP is suggesting then he is worth $13 mil/year. If we're going to start killing players because of one bad year then they better start looking for a new 1B and a new SS.

 

[CSF77]

Perhaps but like I said this was 1 year of a 4 year deal.

He would have to go 18-8 to break even next year. If he ends up as a .500 pitcher as his:

70-71 going into this season suggests he will never make up to .500 with the Cubs.

He is just not a good starter. He is avg at best.

No, I'd say he was more of a known value they picked up in case their gambles on Baker, Feldman and Wood didn't work out. They didn't know any of those players were going to be A) healthy and B) effective. Baker and Feldman were coming off injuries and Wood had never pitched more than 156 innings. If you don't sign Jackson and those guys didn't work out look how horrible the rotation would have been. This is my point about reliability. Also, don't forget that Garza had question marks coming into the season too. So, you run the risk of having 1 pitcher(Shark) and filling 4 slots with AAA guys of which we know the Cubs aren't strong.

LOL really it had more to do with picking up sluggish sales.

Going into the season they were expecting Garza, Shark and Wood. Then they signed Feldman, Baker and Carlos V. After they were 6 deep not including AAA types they signed Jackson.

So that made them 7 deep, S/T they lost Baker and Garza to injury not in the off season.

They were planing to sell high on Feldman and maybe Baker if was able to.


So the signing was what it was. A signing to get a ticket sale boost.

They will probable do the same thing this year when season tickets go on sale.

 

[CSF77]

I'd rather have Feldman than Jackson next year. You can pull numbers all day to say other wise.

Simple fact is Feldman was pitching well enough to let his teams win games. 12-12 over all and pitched 30 games and ran a 4.27 ERA in the AL east with a DH to deal with.

Like I said they have made some solid signings to flip for some quality returns but I'd rather not have them lock up future payroll into under performers.

 

[beckdawg]

He would have to go 18-8 to break even next year. If he ends up as a .500 pitcher as his: 70-71 going into this season suggests he will never make up to .500 with the Cubs. He is just not a good starter. He is avg at best.

LOL really it had more to do with picking up sluggish sales. Going into the season they were expecting Garza, Shark and Wood. Then they signed Feldman, Baker and Carlos V. After they were 6 deep not including AAA types they signed Jackson. So that made them 7 deep, S/T they lost Baker and Garza to injury not in the off season. They were planing to sell high on Feldman and maybe Baker if was able to. So the signing was what it was. A signing to get a ticket sale boost.
They will probable do the same thing this year when season tickets go on sale.

Who sees the signing of Edwin Jackson and says man I really wanna go see a cubs game? I sure as hell can't think of anyone. I don't see how anyone would think that signing him picks up sales.

As for W/L, are you really using that as your indication of pitcher success? Wood was 9-12. Shark was 8-13. Villanueva was 7-8. The majority of cubs pitchers lost more games than they won because they are a bad team. So what if he's average at best? Average pitchers without health concerns make $13 mil/year in FA. You're not finding an ace pitcher for $13 mil/year in FA. Hell, Garza is a glorified #2 and will probably get upwards of $18-20 mil/year. Anibel Sanchez is a #3 and got $18 mil. Jackson is a reliable back of the rotation starter.

 

[CSF77]

In the new era W/L has been shoved back and has been valued less. That in itself is sad because when we look at hall of fame pitchers wins is the criteria for entry. If a pitcher pitches 20 years but plays for low run support and avg 12 wins per season he will end up with 240 wins which is short of 300 by 60 wins and most likey never sniffing the hall regardless of what his fipx is or what ever.

Now I have said wins are a result of hitting his location and pitching better than his match up. It is pretty simple. If you get 2 runs of support on avg and your ERA is 4 you will lose more than you will win. Who's fault is it? The starters fault for not pitching better and he deserved the loss.

Most starters worth their salt will say this and will not blame his team for not generating more runs.

Wins do matter

Even Garza used to say that he needs to pitch into the 7th more. To not let a shakey BP dictate his game. Any starter will say that they are paid to win games. Sadly some wiz heads have other views and they never played at that level.

 

[brett05]

Wins matter, but if you look at Nolan Ryan 1987, he was easily a 15-20 game winner in that live ball year.

 

[dabynsky]

Wins as an ability of a pitcher is stupid. There are too many factors outside of his control for it to be an effective measure of what a pitcher does for his team. At best it loosely coorelates to the ability of pitcher and the sooner we stop looking it to it as a measure of ability the better.

 

[CSF77]

Wins as an ability of a pitcher is stupid. There are too many factors outside of his control for it to be an effective measure of what a pitcher does for his team. At best it loosely coorelates to the ability of pitcher and the sooner we stop looking it to it as a measure of ability the better.

Even so if you give up more than your opponent then you lose.

This is an old argument that has been fought over and over. TWTW as Hawk calls it.

We can say this pitcher goes out and has stellar numbers but just loses games then pitcher B just wins games. Do we devalue pitcher A for not winning or devalue pitcher B for being lucky that day?

Swear that argument would put Jack Morris out of a job and Det out of the 1984 WS and Minn out of the 1991 WS because his value was less than others.

 

[dabynsky]

Even so if you give up more than your opponent then you lose.

This is an old argument that has been fought over and over. TWTW as Hawk calls it.

We can say this pitcher goes out and has stellar numbers but just loses games then pitcher B just wins games. Do we devalue pitcher A for not winning or devalue pitcher B for being lucky that day?

Swear that argument would put Jack Morris out of a job and Det out of the 1984 WS and Minn out of the 1991 WS because his value was less than others.

The idea that it is a skill to be able to pitcher to the score has been debunked again and again. The idea that Jack Morris pitched differently when the score dictated has not been bore out in any numbers, for example this article does a good job of showing that the argument is mostly myth. There is just too much noise involved in wins for it to have any real meaning for a pitcher beyond confirming or denying what we already knew based on things that are much more under their control like strikeouts, walks, homeruns, etc.

Out of curiousity are you actually using Hawk to support your arugment :cubstroll2:

 

[SilenceS]

Yea, I am sorry but wins mean jack shit as a pitcher. Its why QS have become such a big stat when evaluating a pitcher even though I think a QS needs to raise its standards to 7 innings and 3 or 4 runs earned.

 

[beckdawg]

In the new era W/L has been shoved back and has been valued less. That in itself is sad because when we look at hall of fame pitchers wins is the criteria for entry. If a pitcher pitches 20 years but plays for low run support and avg 12 wins per season he will end up with 240 wins which is short of 300 by 60 wins and most likey never sniffing the hall regardless of what his fipx is or what ever.

Now I have said wins are a result of hitting his location and pitching better than his match up. It is pretty simple. If you get 2 runs of support on avg and your ERA is 4 you will lose more than you will win. Who's fault is it? The starters fault for not pitching better and he deserved the loss.

Most starters worth their salt will say this and will not blame his team for not generating more runs.

Wins do matter

Even Garza used to say that he needs to pitch into the 7th more. To not let a shakey BP dictate his game. Any starter will say that they are paid to win games. Sadly some wiz heads have other views and they never played at that level.

If your team is only getting 2 runs of support your 4th and 5th starters are going to lose a lot of games. And just to throw some real stats in here, the cubs were second to last in the NL in runs per game at 3.72. Miami was the only team worse. I excluded the AL because the DH obviously increases runs there. League average was 4 runs. So, to see that Jackson lost 18 games with a 5ish ERA isn't surprising at all. Regardless, I really think that's irrelevant. We both agree Jackson had a bad year. My only point was that using his 18 losses this year as a judgement for the entire length of his contract is silly. Honestly, he'll probably be .500 or worse next year even with the 4 ERA I suggested because the cubs aren't likely going to be above average in runs per game.

I really don't feel like going round about this that much more. So, I'm going to leave it at this. The cubs probably knew they would trade away Baker, Villenuva, Feldman and Garza given the chance and any decent kind of return. I'm sure we both can agree there.They surely had hope for Wood to do what he did. They had Shark. However, Shark also has the potential to be traded too assuming they can't come to a deal for an extension. They didn't have Arrieta at the time. Vizcaino had health issues. Rusin was a unknown quantity having a 6.37 ERA coming into the season. As for the rest of AAA, none had seen time.

None of the guys they have in the near future have proven they are 200 IP guys. If they hadn't signed Jackson or someone like him it would have been absurdly risky. Rusin has never thrown 200 IP in a single season in his entire career and most of the other AAA guys are the same. Wood and Shark had never done it at the MLB level. Had they not signed Jackson, or someone like him, they run the risk of having a lot of AAA arms that break down from more usage than they can handle. He gave them a known quantity for a relatively cheap price. They can gamble on guys like Maholm and Feldman and get better return for their money but as we saw with Baker, those gambles don't always equate to a pitcher who is healthy.

 

[CSF77]

Good argument.

I see the point made about Jack. What stood out to me was how he gave up the lead as much as he did which goes against my argument of pitching better than the competition.

But good argument.

But the thread has been derailed enough. Still to the main point Not a fan of Jackson. Rather have had Feldman who was winning games.

And Jackson has alot to prove over the next 3 years to regain his value again.

 

[CSF77]

I really don't feel like going round about this that much more. So, I'm going to leave it at this. The cubs probably knew they would trade away Baker, Villenuva, Feldman and Garza given the chance and any decent kind of return. I'm sure we both can agree there.They surely had hope for Wood to do what he did. They had Shark. However, Shark also has the potential to be traded too assuming they can't come to a deal for an extension. They didn't have Arrieta at the time. Vizcaino had health issues. Rusin was a unknown quantity having a 6.37 ERA coming into the season. As for the rest of AAA, none had seen time.

Wood put up a solid WHIP last year and I predicted he was better than he showed. I got into plenty of arguments over that issues over the pro-Marshall crew back on CBS. Here is a case of hard luck but every loss he got beat by the other guy. Again I doubt he is blaming his hitters for letting him down here. The other starter just pitched a great game.



Feldman I believe they wanted to flip. He lost his role and before S/T Theo and Jed said they felt he was a starter. Pure sell high move. For the record I hated him at first and up until he got command of his cutter and bought into Dale's game plan. Took a few games but he was winning and winning changes my opinion of pitchers. He lacks a big fastball but a very good back of the rotation guy. Would not be mad to see him in Cub blue again.

Baker I bet they wanted to buy low and get him to resign. (still may happen) but his extended injury messed up the plans. On the fence here because he is good. I would put him as a shade under Garza and above Shark if healthy. That is if Shark keeps status que. Tough one here.

Rusin or Raley I was not expecting in the plans. But I'll bet that Rusin could have won 8 games though. The production was very slimier. That is not saying anything good because Rusin was a .500 pitcher in Iowa. Could toss a shut out one day and the next knocked out in the 3rd the next. As we saw.

They need another arm for sure just not sure what direction they go here.