I thought Smart's analysis of the Cubs was decent, but sketchy. For instance:

What turned out to be this team's Achilles heel?

I thought Smart did a fine job discussing the pitching problems at length. The problem I had was that when he got to his main point, he simply grouped it as "teamwide OBP" and left it at that. I wish he would've pointed to the OF in particular, which was clearly the worst in MLB and a significant reason for the low OBP.

More importantly, though, while the players themselves were crappy (or had crappy performances), I also think that much of the problem was in lineup/roster mismanagement that are directly the result of the manager -- specifically, the overuse of guys like Hollandsworth, Patterson, and Perez (often at the top of the order), while promising OBPs and performers like Murton, Cedeno, Hairston, and Dubois sat on the bench.

I'm not saying that Smart should have spent his entire essay trashing Dusty, but the fact is that he failed to identify Dusty as a problem for this team at all, and to the extent he dealt with him, Smart simply said that "Dusty is Dusty."

How do you hope Jim Hendry attacks this problem in the winter?

Again, I thought the first part of this analysis was much stronger than the second. I don't know if I favor Rafael Furcal, but I can understand Smart's points and they are fairly well developed.

My problem is that after devoting so much space to Furcal, he only casually mentions the entire outfield (and places it as #2 on his agenda). Even then, after touting Murton for LF, it is entirely unclear what he wants for CF or RF. He mentions Brian Giles, then eventually cops out by saying "further speculation might result in extraordinary foolishness."

Season Lowlight?

I have no problem with his choice (Nomar's injury), but wished he would have mentioned the decision to give Kerry Wood a final appearance after announcing he was scheduled for later in the week. That made an already bad situation into a complete circus (and was a major impetus behind my Operation Shutdown).

The Dodgers could still make it - and might be the only team in their market who does - perhaps the bigger long-term vicotry.

Bpro gives LAD 2 %. That's like hitting the seven of hearts on the river to make quad 7s vs. trip aces. Could happen, but not really. Unless I have the aces.

(Also posted in the Dugout)

It's sort of funny -- in a tragic kind of way -- that this is the latest in a long line of September disaters for the Mets. It actually goes back to the early-Bobby V days:


1998 -- had a Wild Card spot all but locked up heading into the 3rd week of Sept., but got swept by the Expos & Braves to get knocked out of it.

1999 -- had to scramble for wins vs. Pittsburgh the last 2 days of the year and get a 1-hit gem by Leiter over the Reds in a play-in game to secure their post-season spot

2000 -- survived a 2-7 start to September by going 13-7 the rest of the way, and were incredibly lucky to not have to face Atlanta in the NLCS for the 2nd straight year

2001 -- 9/11, John Franco & Armando Benitez. 'Nuff said...

2002 -- Had an outside shot at the beginning of August, but then were swept in a double-header at home vs. Arizona, highlighted by a crushing Craig Counsell HR in game 1

2003 -- Never had a shot, but went 7-19 in September just for the helluvit

2004 -- Thought they had a shot at the end of July, but then the Trade That Dare Not Speak Its Name happened

How do you hope Jim Hendry attacks this problem in the winter?

Again, I thought the first part of this analysis was much stronger than the second. I don't know if I favor Rafael Furcal, but I can understand Smart's points and they are fairly well developed.

I just don't get it. I'm hearing the drumbeat that Furcal is a leadoff-type guy, because he gives good OBP. Really?

Atlanta's basically a neutral park, according to B-R.com, so that wouldn't seem to be skewing Furcal's numbers. Here he is, compared to the League OBP since his rookie season:

Year Furcal League
2000 .394 .351
2001 .321 .341
2002 .323 .340
2003 .352 .336
2004 .344 .341
2005 .341 ?

I don't actually know this year's league OBP, since I can't find any source that gives the league total. Since I only see one NL team with an OBP in the .340's, it looks like it must be in the mid to low .330's.

So, Furcal is just a bit above average. He's 43rd in the NL in OBP at this moment. As a shortstop he's better than average, but he's not clearly the top. So why is it a good idea to pay him premium money when he doesn't actually do premium work, and you have another candidate who, while clearly an unknown, has the potential to be comparable for the league minimum?

I just don't see it with Furcal, and now I'm getting afraid that they'll sink enough money into him that when he is nothing special they can't afford someone who is.

I liked the Cubs write-up for the most part, but one line annoyed me -

Greg Maddux continued to devolve into a highly paid fifth starter

- His ERA is 4.22. The league average ERA is about (I'm just taking the average of the 16 team ERAs here) 4.23. What's the line someone had on the old site? People who act as if league average players are worthless are the stathead equivilent of Skip Bayless.

Furcal has the 2nd best (to Eckstein) OBP in the NL for a shortstop, plus he has speed and good defense, sounds like premium money to me. With Furcal I would be more worried about length of the contract he wants more than the amount. He is a better player than OC, Renteria, probably will be better than Eckstein next year, and other shortstop in the NL.

In reference to #1, I’m sorry you weren’t happy with the piece overall. I aims to please, so obviously, when I don’t I’m disappointed, and to the extent that you feel like I failed in my mission, I apologize.

The only thing I’ll say in my defense is that my contribution wasn’t intended to be an exhaustive breakdown of the team’s shortcomings - just some reasonably articulate, mostly fun answers to the questions posed. However, you’re correct – although from my perspective it was in large part due to an attempt to fit into a format, it was a bit sketchy.

In reference to #6, I should have been clearer, because I don’t think Maddux is without value, or that league average players don’t have value. However, I’d also say that I never said that fifth starters didn’t have value, either.

I do think Maddux is about fifth starter quality anymore, though, and I think he’s also pretty well compensated for the level of ability he brings to the table, so while the statement itself might not have been clear, I stand by the intent behind it.

Oh, and Skip Bayless? Dude, that’s cold. ;)

I do think Maddux is about fifth starter quality anymore

By BP's Support Neutral Value Added, Maddux is 55th in all of baseball this year. That's significantly above 5th starter level of performance.

(I picked the first easy to find all-encompasing pitching stat that came to mind. You can pick another if you like. It might rank slightly differently, but no where near 5th starter level)

If Maddux has an exactly league average ERA, he is almost by definition 3rd starter quality. That also squares with my subjective view of his 2005 abilities and performance. He's only a fifth starter on a championship type team with a loaded rotation.

There are 33 pitchers in the NL with better ERAs than Maddux. And a lot of the guys ahead of him pitch in better pitchers' parks or haven't demonstrated the consistency Maddux has. In a 16-team league I'd say that makes him a #3 starter. At worst a #4. 5th starters are guys like Brandon Backe or Josh Fogg - do you really think Maddux is that bad?

That all makes good sense, so I'll concede the point on Maddux.

I think my bias here comes from formerly held expectations - perhaps a bit of the residual from looking at the rotation of Prior, Zambrano, Wood, Clement, and Maddux that loomed in the 2004 offseason, and the thought that was always in my head that, in that group, Maddux was probably #5. I need to get shut of that moving forward, I guess. Thanks for setting me straight, gents.

What we really want to know Smitty is this: What's your view on pants?

Best Regards

John

I'm undecided.

I think it's a mistake to focur on things like OBA, or lead-off, as the writer would have Hendry do with the Cubs. The reasons are 1) baseball production is linear enough so that you don't have to worry about 'balance' too much, and 2) it limits, rather than expands, your options. For example, if Hendry focuses on OBA, he might select a batter who hits .360/.420 over a player who hits .340/.500, or he might ignore an available, affordable upgrade to the pitching staff because he figures he needs hitting more than pitching, etc.

He shouldn't worry about a "style" for his team (like the W Sox did with their pitching, defense, and smallball mindset). Instead, he should look at each of the 25 slots, and decide whether the player he has in that slot could fill that role on a playoff team, and relative to his salary and contract.

If the endpoint of that results in a team which seems imbalanced in favor of pitching, or hitting, or OBA, or SLG, or whatever, then that's the way it is, and the best he could do.

Of course, you must have an accurate player evaluation model for that to work. If all Hendry looks at is the triple crown stats, then he might end up with an inferior SLG-based offense simply because of his biases (or Dusty's) and not because those were neccessarily the best available players.

When most people discuss first starter, second starter, third starter, etc., they think of playoff bound teams, not league average teams. Maddux, is a 3rd starter on an average team, but more like a 5th starter on a playoff bound team. If he's your 3rd best starter at this point chances are your pitching isn't very good.

I liked Smart's analysis of the Cubs. While I might have expanded the OBP problem he was essentially right. While I disagree with Maddux being a 5th starter I defiantly see how he can see it that way. We were hoping for a little more from him.

The bigger problem here is what's wrong with Smitty*? I think he should be put on suicide watch.

While I disagree with Maddux being a 5th starter I defiantly see how he can see it that way.
Now that's some strong support of an opposing view. :)
Sorry to go all spelling police on ya, it just jumped out at me and made me chuckle.

Sorry to go all spelling police on ya, it just jumped out at me and made me chuckle.

no need to apologize I am a horrible speller, the second worse speller in my family. I constantly do crap like that. The worse speller is due to be born in a couple of weeks. All that counts is that I made you laugh (or chuckle).

But seriously

Don’t you worry about Smitty

When most people discuss first starter, second starter, third starter, etc., they think of playoff bound teams, not league average teams. Maddux, is a 3rd starter on an average team, but more like a 5th starter on a playoff bound team. If he's your 3rd best starter at this point chances are your pitching isn't very good.

I still don't think that's accurate. Look at the Red Sox, Yankees, Braves, Phillies, Padres, etc. In my opinion, none of these teams have even 3 starters who I would rather have pitching than Maddux, let alone 4. On Houston, which has the second best ERA in the league, Maddux would be a #4.

When most people discuss first starter, second starter, third starter, etc., they think of playoff bound teams, not league average teams. Maddux, is a 3rd starter on an average team, but more like a 5th starter on a playoff bound team. If he's your 3rd best starter at this point chances are your pitching isn't very good.

But this mentality also leads to people saying things like "Pedro just isn't a #1 starter anymore". When people say that they really mean that they don't think of Pedro as one of the top 5 or 10 starters in the league. But of course, there are 30 teams that need #1 starters.

Is the concept of #1 starter really just shorthand for "#1 starter on a staff that is one of the top 8 staffs in MLB"? I guess it's often used that way, but it doesn't make any sense.

dizzypaco -

The only team in baseball I can find with four starters pretty clearly better than Maddux is the Angels. The A's could qualify, with health.

Most playoff teams would fit Maddux nicely into the 3-4 spots, and the Red Sox might start him in Game 1, the Yankees in Game 2.

It's a rare pitching staff that features four solidly above average starters.

Did everyone see the story about how J.D. Drew is having surgery on his non-broken right wrist and right shoulder, and that the Dodgers *knew* about these injuries when they signed him?

It should also be mentioned that if the average ERA for the NL is 4.23 or whatever, the average for a SP is probably 4.40+. Maybe even 4.50+.

Don't really think you're Skip Bayless - that's just a line I remember.

However, I’d also say that I never said that fifth starters didn’t have value, either.

Fifth starters are almost by definition replacement level players. How many teams have a stable fifth starter all year long? Or even most of the year? Very few. And for every team that does there's one or two who don't even have a stable #4.

Maddux, is a 3rd starter on an average team, but more like a 5th starter on a playoff bound team.

Hmmmm . . . let's look it up.

St Louis - the most stable rotation in all MLB (only 2 starts outside their normal 5 - wow). Jason Marquis has an ERA of 4.13 - slightly better than Maddux's.

Atlanta - only has 3 guys with more than 17 starts. Of the 7 guys with at least a dozen starts, only four have better ERAs than Maddux. The others are all over 4.50. Maddux beats them in quality and clobbers them in dependibilty.

Houston - their #4 starter has an ERA of 5.00. Only four games over 20 GS. Lose to Maddux in terms of both quantity and especially quality.

San Diego - Hardly a playoff team, except for the fact that they are a playoff team. Maddux is better than their #3 pitcher.

Teams near WC in the NL:
Florida - Jason Vargas has a slighty better ERA (4.37), but he's only got 10 starts. Before that they had Senator Al. I'd give it to Maddux over Vargas because IP do matter. (looks it up). Oh, his ERA is actually worse than Maddux's.

Philly - Only one pitcher with more than 13 starts has a better ERA than Maddux.

Only the Cards have a better 5th starter than Maddux in the NL.

AL teams - league ERA around 4.34 here.
Yanks - You got to be kidding. Mike Mussina has a league average ERA. He's the AL Greg Maddux. And he's better than four of their pitchers who are double digits in starts.

Angels - four pitchers better than Maddux. #5 has an ERA of 4.96. Advantage still with Maddux.

Boston. You really got to be kidding. Maddux is about as good as their #2 pitcher.

Oakland - Finally! A team with a fifth starter better than Greg Maddux. #5 (Danny Haren)'s ERA is 3.90. Need a park factor of 90 for that to be league average, which is a little low, even for Oakland.

The Wrong Side of Town - 4 very good pitchers, and El Duque and his 5.10 ERA. Plus he's only got 21 starts. Advantage in quality and quantity goes to Maddux.

Cleveland - #5 Elarton is at 4.73. Westbrook's at 4.56.

Of the 12 teams still fighting seriously for the postseason, only 2 have fifth starters that are better than Greg Maddux.

Fifth starters are, by and large, replacement level. Sometimes they're not even that good.

Houston - their #4 starter has an ERA of 5.00. Only four games over 20 GS.

Should say "guys."

you have another candidate who, while clearly an unknown, has the potential to be comparable for the league minimum?

Does Cedeno really have the potential to be comparable to Furcal. But even if you give him a 70% chance to be as good, that's a 30% chance of worse to much, much worse.

Now if you can spend the money to get a better upgrade somewhere else, do it. But the free-agent market is pretty thin this year.

Of the 12 teams still fighting seriously for the postseason, only 2 have fifth starters that are better than Greg Maddux.

While I agree with your basic point, the real question shouldn't be whether teams have *5th* starters better than Maddux; it should be they have 4th starters better than Maddux, in which case he'd be #5.

I think the best case you can make against the argument that Maddux is a #5 on a playoff team is that there are several non-playoff teams in the NL where you could make Maddux their #3 or #4 starter and they would become playoff teams.

What, no Twins comments?

Here's a question for Aaron. Joe Mauer has been OK. OK. That's not a question, but this is. Still, hasn't he been a pretty horrible 3 slot guy? I mean, what, 38 XBH? He oughta been in the 2 slot and, er, ah, you know, what's 'is name, the guy they're going to acquire with some of Jim Souhan's, er, no, Carl Pohlad's money, he oughta be in the 3 slot. 'Course then who the hell hits at 4?

Right, where do you start with this mess?

While I agree with your basic point, the real question shouldn't be whether teams have *5th* starters better than Maddux; it should be they have 4th starters better than Maddux, in which case he'd be #5.

Not wanting to go digging at espn.com again, I'll work from my list above and memory. Obviously St Louis & Oakland would have better 4th starters. And the White Sox and Angels. Maybe Florida - depends on IP. Actually the Red Sox are close, but they got a bunch of guys around the same ERA. I still think he'd win that won.

He's better than 10 out of 12 fifth starters and 7 or 8 out of 12 fourth starters.

Um, Smart conceded the point in post 12.

It's a rare pitching staff that features four solidly above average starters.

How about Ben Sheets, Doug Davis, Chris Capuano, and Tomo Ohka?

The ERA difference between the leagues is only 0.10? Wow.

Um, Smart conceded the point in post 12.

But Greg,

It's a "free" country site.
And most Primates' 2nd favorite pastime is kicking dead equines... ;) ...

--------
trevise

Ben Sheets, Doug Davis, Chris Capuano, and Tomo Ohka


It is nice as a Brewers fan to be able to count on 4 guys that should all be at least average next year. On the other hand, there is buzz that Ohka will be non-tendered for some reason, which would be a huge mistake, imo.

there is buzz that Ohka will be non-tendered

Where did you hear that? Brewerfan?

great research chris j. I always get upset when I see people belittling a guy that is "league" average or so and call him a 5th or 4th starter, almost by definition guys like Suppan are 3-4 starters, same with Marquis. and the comment up earlier about pedro no longer being a number one, another real good response, a number one...by definition is one of the 30 best starting pitchers in baseball, (best starting is a subjective definition I agree, but is there any subjective, objective or any type of analysis that wouldn't list Pedro as a top 30)

Bpro gives LAD 2 %. That's like hitting the seven of hearts on the river to make quad 7s vs. trip aces. Could happen, but not really. Unless I have the aces.

Hey, I saw a guy river his fourth five to beat trip sixes tonight at Casino Arizona. It's easy!

Um, Smart conceded the point in post 12.

I was responding to post #16.

In reference to #1, I’m sorry you weren’t happy with the piece overall. I aims to please, so obviously, when I don’t I’m disappointed, and to the extent that you feel like I failed in my mission, I apologize.

No apologies necessary. I was probably a lot more harsh than I intended. I thought the essay was just fine for the most part -- it's just that I would've like to have seen your points fleshed out a bit more. It seemed that, at times, you spent more space talking about secondary concerns, then rushed your main point.

I understand that you were hamstrung by the format, though, and as I said, I thought the essay was pretty good overall. I just love to nit-pick and *I* apologize if I sounded more critical than I intended.

Did everyone see the story about how J.D. Drew is having surgery on his non-broken right wrist and right shoulder, and that the Dodgers *knew* about these injuries when they signed him?
They knew, and he hit 286/412/520/932 anyway, until the HBP.
What's your point?

you have another candidate who, while clearly an unknown, has the potential to be comparable for the league minimum?

Does Cedeno really have the potential to be comparable to Furcal. But even if you give him a 70% chance to be as good, that's a 30% chance of worse to much, much worse.

Now if you can spend the money to get a better upgrade somewhere else, do it. But the free-agent market is pretty thin this year.

Well, I guess I don't mean that I think Cedeno has to potential to be Rafael Furcal next year. But Cedeno was 22, and he hit well at AAA and got on base well in Chicago. He didn't show much power in Chicago (.375 SLG), but Furcal's SLGs have only been .415 and .414 the past two seasons.

I do think that it's possible that Cedeno can put up something close to Furcal's OBP. And, he's going to be dirt cheap for the next four years if he does. And, it seems less likely to me that Cedeno is going to put up a .280 OBP next year, or even .300.

I expect the upgrade distance from Neifi Perez to Cedeno to be greater than the likely distance from Cedeno to Furcal. If that's the case, I don't see any reason to sink big money into SS. Put that money somewhere else, where you will see a larger return on investment. A corner outfielder, for example.