When you see a pitcher's BABIP deviate wildly from the .290-.300 range, there's probably some luck (or lack thereof) involved. When you see a BABIP as low as Dempster's, red flags abound.

Ruh Roh......Dayn's gonna get it now. ;)

Emphasis mine with the bold and underline by the way.......he's obviously not saying a guy with a .285 BABIP is lucky.......the qualifying words one uses in their language are important to understanding the writers true thinking. It looks to me like Dayn thinks much like I do.....beware the EXTREMES, because it's when guys are at extremes, you are most likely to see a swing the other way. It's never 100 % certain of course. But if you are going to put forth the idea that a guy SHOULD be at the extremes, you better have a very good explanation as to why. Don't just tell someone they "don't understand BABIP"

Need more pitching worries? The unhittable Carlos Marmol is on pace for 104.0 innings this season, and that obviously can’t continue.
I can see why the strain of pitching against the modern, powerful lineups has limited the number of innings that you can get out of your starters, when compared to days of yore.

But I have more of a problem in understanding why a relief pitcher can't approach 100 innings per year. Obviously 100 appearance/100 innings is "strainful", but pitching 2 innings every other appearance isn't feasible? 60/90? 70/100 at the outside?

There is too much emphasis on knowing your role. Hey my boss and I are struggling with my role at work and it's got me in a bit of a funk, but c'mon, this is baseball. "Hey skip, I'm the 7th inning guy, I can't possibly pitch in the 6th." I exaggerate, of course.

You can set up your guys for a game, letting guys know where they might be used on a particular day. Obviously you can't predict every situation but you can let each guy know if he's in your A list or not for the day. A manager would have to be more judicious about who warms up, since you don't want to burn out your guys with warm ups over the year.

Not that this is a novel thought, but it sure looks to me like the usage behavior is driven by fear of second-guessing. With omnipresent TV cameras, reporters and bloggers (I kid), instant second guessing would be annoying if I was a manager. It's easier to say, "my 8th inning guy didn't get the job done."

The benefits are obvious, as you could drop back to an 11 man bullpen, weeding out 50-60 innings of craptastic pitching from each team. You'd have another sub, likely a no-field, good-hit type so So "SoSo" Taguchi pinch hitting appearances would decrease.

The last team I managed was a bunch of tee-ballers 13 years ago, so maybe that style of managing wouldn't work and I'm talking through my hat. It just continues to bug me and yes, I feel better now.

Overall, you've got a team that's not capable of maintaining their current 100-win pace.

I realize that. Can they win 93? I think so.

It would have been better to put concrete numbers on Dempster's overperformance. While it's obvious that his BABIP is out of line with the Cubs' .277 Def Eff (which itself will probably regress a bit), Perry gives us no sense of the magnitude of Dempster's good fortune so far. Dempster is 15th in the NL in FIP and xFIP. He's seventh in the NL in both LD% and GB%. His NRA is 3.55 and his DERA is 4.22. Dempster is 19th in RA.

Speaking of RA, if that's a more valid performance metric than ERA, the expected regression in his ERA shouldn't have THAT much influence on his overall value to the team. When his performance slips closer to his peripherals, he will still be an above average starting pitcher. If the underlying performances slips as well, he should still provide value at the back of the rotation.

As well, if those pitching concerns come to be realized, then the Cubs will have problems repeating as division champs in the suddenly respectable NL Central.
This line bothers me. The whole article's focus is about things evening out and yet, Perry has the nerve to call the NL Central "suddenly respectable"? I expect things to even out eventually, but that's not exclusive to the Cubs. The Astros offense cannot carry a team that offers the likes of Chris Sampson and Shawn Chacon in its starting rotation. Likewise, it's not likely the Cardinals' starting rotation can maintain the success they've experienced the first two months of the year.

As for the Cubs, I think the rotation solution is simple, assuming Hill gets his stuff in order. Move Hill back to the rotation, leave Gallagher and exile Marquis to the bullpen.

"But I have more of a problem in understanding why a relief pitcher can't approach 100 innings per year."

He's assuming implicitly that Marmol is going to continue to be used in the fashion that's typical of modern relievers (i.e. the way in which he has been used in the past). If they wanted to stretch him out and make him into a long reliever, he could probably do 100 innings with no sweat, and I'm sure Dayn knows that, but since the chance of that actually happening has to be near zero, he's talking about the likelihood of Marmol reaching 100 innings in 100 one-inning bites.

How about:

Record v. Pittsburgh: 8-1
Record v. Rest of League: 20-17

RS - RA v. Pittsburgh: +36 (Nine Games)
RS - RA v. Rest of League: +38 (37 Games)

I realize PIT is part of the Major Leagues - and the Cubs get them nine more times - but their current "win pace" would also require roughly 32 Pirate games on their 2008 schedule.

They should win the division but I wouldn't make plans for Wacker Drive in late October just yet.

He's assuming implicitly that Marmol is going to continue to be used in the fashion that's typical of modern relievers (i.e. the way in which he has been used in the past).

Actually, his usage this year pretty much mirrors last year (which was his first year as a regular major-league reliever). Last year, he didn't get into a game until the Cubs' 41st game of the season (May 19). He then appeared in 59 of the Cubs' last 121 games or just a smidge under less than every other game. This year, he's got 23 appearances in 46 games, exactly every other game. In '07, he faced an average of 4.83 batters per appearance. So far in 2008, he's facing 4.61 batters per appearance (his IP/appearance is up a smidge but is more than offset by his WHIP being 40% lower).

Barring injury (which could be Perry's point, of course, and can never fairly be assumed completely away), I don't see any reason to think that Marmol won't appear in around 80 games for the Cubs this season and end up pitching around 100 innings.

Cubs were probably one of the three(or four) best NL teams coming into the season, nothing has really changed to change mine or probably anyone elses mind that that isn't still the case. 93 wins seems very reasonable. I'm fine with articles trying to temper optimism, but this seemed like a waste more than anything else.


I will disagree, of course, with other peoples assessment about the quality of their opposition, but with the slow start from the Brewers, the Cubs have to be the consensus pick for the division at this point in time. It's not like they are the Rays and are playing above reasonable projections, they are playing to their projections(within normal error)

How about:

Record v. Pittsburgh: 8-1
Record v. Rest of League: 20-17

RS - RA v. Pittsburgh: +36 (Nine Games)
RS - RA v. Rest of League: +38 (37 Games)

I realize PIT is part of the Major Leagues - and the Cubs get them nine more times - but their current "win pace" would also require roughly 32 Pirate games on their 2008 schedule.

They should win the division but I wouldn't make plans for Wacker Drive in late October just yet.

The problem with this is you can do it for just about any team.

AZ vs. Colorado: 8-1.
AZ vs. Everyone else: 20-16

RS-RA v. Colorado: +28 runs
RS-RA v. everyone else : +27 runs

So far this year, Pittsburgh's actualy been better than Colorado believe it or not. Does this mean we should expect AZ to falter? The D-backs still look like the best team in the league to me.

They happened to get hot when they played a sad sack team, just as teh Cubs did against Pitt.

The mistake is to assume the team's ral value lay in its' record aside from piling up on the one team. They're not as good as they are against Whipping Boy, but they're better than their overall record. The 8-1 mark signifies not only how bad the oponent was, but how good the team in question was in those series.

The Cubs will slack off. RIght now, they look like a maddentinly inconsistent team - hot spurt, cold spurt, hot spurt. In the off-season, I figured that as Zambrano goes, so goes the Cubs. I stand by that. If he keeps pitching like this, they'll win the division. If he keeps pitching like he did in his last start, they're in trouble.

As for the backend of the rotation, between Hill, Lieber, and Marshall I think one will emerge as a solid starter. If they have a hole in #5, they're no different from almost any other team in baseball.

Here's another one:

Florida is 8-1 vs DC
They're 17-18 against everyone else.

They're +15 in run scoring against DC
They're -7 against everyone else.

Chicago, Florida & Arizona are the division leaders, and this game works for all of them.

Houston's 3-0 vs LA.
They're 23-21 against everyone else.

Houston's +14 runs against LA.
They're -4 against everyone else.

LA is 5-1 vs. Colorado.
LA is 19-20 against everyone else.

LA is +15 in runs against Colorado
LA is +4 in runs against everyone else.

Atlanta is 3-0 vs Cincy
Atlanta is 21-21 against everyone else.

Atlanta is +17 in runs against Cincy
Atlanta is +34 against everyone else (that's pretty good, actually).

It doesn't work for St Louis, to their credit. To their demerit, they've had fewer games against teams with winning records than any team in the NL. Right now, they look like an 85-87 win team to me. If they win 87, the Brewers will have to go 66-51 to catch them, a 91-win pace over 162 games. They can do that, but they better hurry. Unless they fire Yost, I don't see it happening. I don't see Houston holding up. Right now, their tOPS+ in high leverage situations is 123, third best in all MLB. (tOPS+ compares a team's OPS in a given split versus their overall team OPS). In other words, they're hitting really well in the clutch. Even if they keep ihitting well in the clutch, they ain't likely to keep hitting this well in the clutch. Pittsburgh has the best tOPS+ in high leverage situations at 135, so are even less likely to maintain their current pace.

Well, since I got it out, here's the high leverage tOPS+ for the entire NL Central:

PIT 135
HOU 123
STL 116
MIL 99
CHC 98
CIN 78

Cincy & Milwuakee are the bottom feeders at the moment, but they're the ones that frighten me. I respect St Louis, but I think 88 wins will beat them. The Cubs have to go 60-56 to do that.

Sorry for rambling.

I can't take Cincy seriously... I don't doubt they'll have a push for a month or so like they always do, but they are Cincy and I just can't take them serious. Milwaukee on the other hand has got to rebound somewhat.

Or, Pittsburgh is 1-8 v. the Cubs and 20-16 v. everybody else.

Cincy has lots of talent, front end pitching and a solid closer.

The Reds need to drop Patterson in the order, keep Cueto/EV upright, give Jr. about 20 more games to cut bait and replace Weathers with Burton.

And I haven't even mentioned Jay Bruce.

The Milwaukee wish list is a LOT longer. And hamstrung by a manager who is likely the one most ill-suited for his pitching staff.

I saw Milwaukee in 1982 come from a game under .500 47 games in to win 95 games. We have seen other teams manage even more dramatic turnarounds.

But there is always a catalyst. SOMETHING happens.

Melvin is standing pat.

That's all one needs to know.

Good points Doc Nabbit. I found it interesting but it may not be meaningful.

Or, Pittsburgh is 1-8 v. the Cubs and 20-16 v. everybody else

Plus they have a better winning percentage against the Cubs than the D-backs.

Holy schnikes.... how in the world do the Reds have a team ops+ of 100 when you look at the regulars at every position, how bad is their bench and pitchers at hitting? I was going to take a look at the Reds to see how "good" their talent was and saw all these 100+ ops+ except center and right...then I think wow, I wonder what their ops+ for the team is...scroll to the bottom and see a 100 on the nose. WTF??? all but one of their pitchers is -OPS+ but it's still hard to believe that the scrubs are getting enough bats to bring the team down that much. (along with Patteson) Of course no one is really tearing the cover off of the ball but still it's a shock to see.

The last team I managed was a bunch of tee-ballers 13 years ago, so maybe that style of managing wouldn't work and I'm talking through my hat.

Organizing your bullpen is easier in tee-ball;)

Griffey is lugging .369.

And if he were any more immobile on defense he risks taking root.

cfb,

I saw the same thing. Screw, innit?

And the regulars who are hitting poorly are the outfielders. If Griffey can recover at all and Bruce takes the starting role, this could be a monster offense.

You know, the DBacks offense is pretty good once you subtract the black hole in LF

You know, the DBacks offense is pretty good once you subtract the black hole in LF

Continuation of last year's pattern so far in 2008:
Home: .296/.373/.480
Away: .220/.304/.385

Plus they have a better winning percentage against the Cubs than the D-backs.

Heh.

Well, that's one way to look at it; another is

hmR/G = 5.96
rdR/G = 4.39

The NL average R/G = 4.58
So they're still scoring runs on the road

For comparison, 2007 R/G for DBacks

hmR/G = 4.77
rdR/G = 4.02

[edit]

Of course, they looked like #### against Hendrickson last night, for f's sake
And they're sucking grizzled balls against Nolasco tonight
So yes, the Dbacks are the biggest bunch of sucks who ever sucked on the road

RS - RA v. Rest of League: +38 (37 Games)

You make the latter bit sound like a bad thing. If a team does that for 162 games they have a +162 run differential.

The Cardinals' starters have been better than I expected, but I'm not sure that a 3.88 ERA is that far out of the question given the quality of their defense, which ranks best in baseball by every advanced metric I've seen (Team RZR of .880 is the most impressive-looking). Wellemeyer will get worse, but Lohse should be better. The other three may all slip a bit, but I wouldn't count on any of them collapsing.

I see Wellemeyer getting worse because he isn't an ace, but I really don't think he'll get bad or even average, the guy has pitched a ton of games for the cardinalw and his stats as a starter (all under the Cardinals in the last year) has been 21 games, 8-2 record, 110 ip, 3.42 era....not kidding, his last 110 innings has been most impressive, I'm not saying he is an ace, but as of right now to claim him as anything less than a solid number three is to ignore the facts of the case.

My only worry with Wellemeyer at this point is durability. He's never shouldered a workload over a full season like he's going to be asked to do this year.

And no, I can't quite believe that Dave Duncan has turned Todd Wellemeyer around so much that I'm confident in everything but his durability. The dude doesn't succeed with everyone, by any means, but man, when he connects with a pitcher . . .