Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Gonfalon Cubs > Discussion
Gonfalon Cubs
— Cubs Baseball for Thinking Fans

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: August 13, 2006 at 12:53 AM (#2138586)
Interesting take, Luke. I'm not 100% sure about the methodology here, but there is no doubt that the decision not to platoon Jones has cost the Cubs something this season, and while this doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, it is yet another deficiency in Baker's managing.

There is the counterissue about whether Jones would be even worse without Baker, but that's kind of a fool's errand.
   2. Andere Richtingen Posted: August 13, 2006 at 01:14 AM (#2138615)
There is the counterissue about whether Jones would be even worse without Baker, but that's kind of a fool's errand

Well, it would be difficult for Jones to do worse against LHP, and he's doing better than his career rate against RHP.

Even if Jones hit at his career rate against LHP (.608 against LHP) instead of this year's .544, it would have been bad to use him against LHP. Hell, you could credit him .050 for bad luck and it would still be unadvisable.

Pretty much everyone here said that Jones was a fine guy to have, as long as you platoon him. For whatever reason, they didn't do that, and the results are not surprising.
   3. Walt Davis Posted: August 13, 2006 at 02:39 AM (#2138715)
Luke's numbers would seem to be pretty close. Another way to approximate it is:

Brad Ausmus is hitting 233/301/295 overall (about 350 PA) which is a little better than Jones's 190/214/330 against lefties, especially in OBP. Ausmus rates at a 210 EQA and a MLVr of -.27. If we take Jones' 100 PA as 25 games and give him Ausmus' probably better -.27 MLVr that's -6.75 runs.

A better comparison might be Rondell White. He's hitting 225/253/305 with an MLVr of -.39 and using that number Jones' 100 PA has already cost us 10 runs.

Luis Terrero is at 200/238/300 and his MLVr is -.44. Ben Broussard (with the Ms) is at 133/188/333 and his MLVr is -.52. Jorge Piedra is at 169/222/356 and he's at -.38. Jared Schumaker is at 179/256/282 and his MLVr is -.4.

So if anything, Luke's esimate of Jones' crappiness this year against lefties appears to be an understatement.
   4. The First Pitch Express Posted: August 13, 2006 at 06:26 AM (#2138818)
Very interesting stuff, Luke and Walt. I wonder if you could project what a full season of an Angel Pagan/Matt Murton platoon would look like... how many runs do the Cubs lose when Pagan plays?
   5. The First Pitch Express Posted: August 13, 2006 at 06:27 AM (#2138819)
Very interesting stuff, Luke and Walt. I wonder if you could project what a full season of an Angel Pagan/Matt Murton platoon would look like... how many runs do the Cubs lose when Pagan plays?
   6. The First Pitch Express Posted: August 13, 2006 at 06:28 AM (#2138820)
Sorry for the double post! Admin, could you delete #5? (and this one?)
   7. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: August 13, 2006 at 08:09 AM (#2138837)
Interesting take, Luke. I'm not 100% sure about the methodology here,

. . . meaning that I probably would've tried to skin the cat slightly differently, but I'd still come out with largely the same result. (In my case, I'd say that the failure to platoon Jones will cost the Cubs 8.6 runs this season (plus the value added by a RH partner) rather than 9 -- no big deal.)

One thing I'd be curious about is his L/R splits on a month-by-month basis. Has Jones been this crappy throughout the season, or did he initially start out ok (when Dusty said he was giving him faith) and then falter?
   8. Walt Davis Posted: August 13, 2006 at 09:22 AM (#2138844)
Has Jones been this crappy throughout the season

I recall he started out truly awful, worse than this. I'm sure the numbers were cited in some of the May disaster threads. He probably has "rewarded" Baker's faith by performing around his career norms for the last 2-3 months.

I wonder if you could project what a full season of an Angel Pagan/Matt Murton platoon would look like

As long as Pagan hits 295/333/474 and runs em down in the field, the Pagan platoon probably doesn't cost us anything of note. Of course there's no reason to expect Pagan to keep hitting like that. His career AAA numbers (600+ PA) are 273/334/403. His best SLG in a season with over 100 PA at any level was 405 at AA in 2004. Prior to this season, I'd guess his projection was something like 240/290/350. That's roughly Brian Anderson/Carl Everett 2006 territory which is an MLVr of around -.2 to -.25. Murton has an MLVr of +.042. Murton does have a mild tilt towards vs. LHP, so as a true full-timer, he might be average (MLVr=0).

So my best guess, and this is the defnition of WAG, is that if the split was 120 g for Pagan and 40 for Murton vs. 120 for Murton and 40 for Pagan, it would be a difference of 15-20 runs or 1.5-2 wins. That makes no adjustment for defense.

Just so everyone's clear, I ain't doing nothing special here. Just going to BPro's VORP page (which lists MLVr and PMLVr) and fishing around (I don't subscribe) until I find players with roughly similar BA/OBP/SLG combinations and assuming that's a good enough estimate. Beats doing all that high-falutin' multiplyin', dividin' and subtractin' that Luke and djf are doin'.
   9. Walt Davis Posted: August 13, 2006 at 09:32 AM (#2138846)
Just noticed that my guess as to Pagan's projection is close to Jones' lifetime numbers against LHP. So giving him about 40 games worth of PA per year has cost his teams about .8 to 1 win a year vs. somebody who could hit league average (much less league average for a corner OF) against lefties.
   10. KB JBAR (trhn) Posted: August 13, 2006 at 05:11 PM (#2139000)
I'm not sure about that eyeball Pagan projection. According to his PECOTA card, last season Pagan had a Eqa of .250 and an equivalent line of 268/329/382. In 2004, he put up a 250s Eqa between two levels. Assuming this year's a blip and he really is a 250ish hitter, Brian Anderson / Carl Everett is far too low. He'd be more in the Aaron Rowand / Steve Finley / Coco Crisp range.
   11. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: August 13, 2006 at 05:31 PM (#2139034)
Beats doing all that high-falutin' multiplyin', dividin' and subtractin' that Luke and djf are doin'.

Actually, all I did was figure that if Jones's MLVr was roughly .174 against RHP (as Luke analogizes), then it would have to be something close to -.238 against LHP to come out with the actual overall number of .071 (because Jones' has had almost exactly 3 PAs against RHPs as LHPs).
   12. Walt Davis Posted: August 14, 2006 at 07:16 AM (#2139965)
According to his PECOTA card, last season Pagan had a Eqa of .250

I know the talent levels in the NL are supposedly down but there is no way in Hell a 271/333/395 line in AAA equates to a 268/329/382 line in MLB. Is the park factor there 70?

ZIPS projected him as 250/306/335. That is a little better than my guess (240/290/350), but I'm closer to ZIPS than PECOTA is.

Of course this season might suggest PECOTA was a better projection than ZIPS. :-)
   13. KB JBAR (trhn) Posted: August 14, 2006 at 02:28 PM (#2140062)
I was actually shocked that PAgan's equivalencies are as good as they are. But then I did some quick and dirty calculations and they pass the sniff test:

According to Szymborski's Weighted park factors, Norfolk has a .84 park factor. So adjusted for park, Pagan's OPS would be in the 790s. Add in a 10% dropoff for the jump between the IL and the Majors and his equivalent OPS is 711. I think the rule of thumb is 15% per level, but I adjusted it a bit because the International League is a tougher offensive environment than the PCL.
   14. Walt Davis Posted: August 15, 2006 at 08:52 AM (#2141393)
According to Szymborski's Weighted park factors, Norfolk has a .84 park factor.

But ZIPS adjusts for all that stuff too. Anyway, I'll let Dan figure this out if he wants to drop by.
   15. Clute Posted: August 15, 2006 at 02:41 PM (#2141468)
Are you guys kidding me about platooning J. Jones? How does a GM go out and sign a player to a 3yr. contract that needs to be platooned, not to mention retarding the development of rookie outfielders. Baker is clueless when it comes to platooning his players anyway. Clueless Manaager, clueless GM and clueless ownership. If the fans and citizens of Green Bay can own the Packers, I'd say we start an investment group from all the disgruntled Cub fans and make a hostile takeover bid for the club.
   16. Walt Davis Posted: August 16, 2006 at 11:23 AM (#2142724)
If the fans and citizens of Green Bay can own the Packers, I'd say we start an investment group from all the disgruntled Cub fans and make a hostile takeover bid for the club.

Not allowed by MLB ownership rules.

But Trib stock should be pretty cheap right now...

Baker is clueless when it comes to platooning his players anyway.

This isn't true. Baker's run plenty of platoons over the years, in SF and Chicago. It's one of the few strategic things I think he does relatively well. Granted, he sometimes platoons guys maybe he shouldn't (Choi).
   17. Clute Posted: August 17, 2006 at 03:23 PM (#2144425)
Walt, you can't be serious. Murton sits repeatedly and Jones hardly ever. Why would Perez ever be in the starting lineup except for a late inning switch. How many times have you seen Baker replace three starters in one game, like the day last week when Prior pitched in Milwaukee. If you want to rotate a player in to get some at bats don't sub for three starters in the same game. And tell me why you call up R. Theriot and have him rot on then bench when he should've been startign everyday at 2nd. He did the same thing last year with Cedeneo. And don't even get me started on his late inning moves with the bullpen. The guy's a complete boob.
   18. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: August 17, 2006 at 03:33 PM (#2144433)
I don't think you're addressing Walt's point, Clute. Dusty plays a lot of horrible lineups and gives far too much playing time to chumps, but Walt's point is that Dusty does use platoons -- Choi/Karros and Dubois/Hollandsworth to name a couple.

The fact that he *shouldn't* have platooned those guys is another issue, but the point is that he does use platoons; he just does them when he shouldn't (Choi, Dubois) and doesn't when he should (Jones).

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2421 seconds
35 querie(s) executed