Ted Lilly

by PopeFlick on Mar 6, 2007 1:11 AM CST Comment 25 comments

Well, in the wake of what is turning out to be a confusing outing of Mark Prior's (how fast WERE his pitches? 83-84 or 88-89?) Ted Lilly's presence just became that much more important. As many don't feel he's a legit #2 there appears to be some real concern setting in about this Prior stuff.

Then again, there also seem to be many who keep saying Prior is gravy, we shouldn't count on him, etc. Early optimism seems to be blinding some to trying to have it boths ways: Prior will be gravy for the year, but now that his armor looks chinked again, we're doomed. There's no doubt a 15+ win Mark Prior means we're in the division race. But what about a 15+ win season from Ted Lilly?

A few things put me at ease.

1- It might not seem like much, but I like the fact he was drafted by the Dodgers. They have, simply, one of the best scouting abilities in the majors.

2- He eats innings: 28 GS average over the past 5 seasons, and if you drop 2002 it moves up to an even 30, with a 170 inning avg per year. (his missed time in 2005 resulted in 25/126). Seeing as how the bullpen is strong, this helps tremendously.

3- and this is the tough part, because short of digging back into every game start, there is something important amongst what might look like pedestrian numbers:

2nd 1st
1st, 4th
1st, 2nd
1st, 2nd
9th, 1st

Those numbers are the team batting rankings for the Red Sox and Yankees respectively in ALL of MLB, not just the AL. I don't know HOW many starts had against them during that span, and the 2002 #'s need an asterisk since he went from the Yanks to the A's in 2002, but still had starts against Boston.

Now, that simply HAS to play a role in his ERA being 4+. With over 5 of the 6 NL Central teams finishing 22nd or worse in batting last year (and the Cards topping out at 14th) he has to be glad he's come here. Will they all be that bad again? Unlikely. But it is even more unlikely that we'll suddenly find 2 division opponents as strong as the Yankees and Red Sox bat wise. Throw in no DH, and you begin to understand some of Arroyo's success from last year, and he was on the Boston teams during the same span.

So, this might seem a little rambling, but the point is Lilly can and frankly SHOULD find better success with the Cubs than he had with Toronto. Can he clip off 15 wins? If he makes his average number of starts and receives a bounce from changing leagues I think the answer, on March 6 is YES. He can.

And it looks like we are really going to need him to. He has become the biscuit for the gravy. You gotta have it, or the gravy is useless.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, editor-in-chief (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I have thought

That he would have a 16 win year between the better offense and the move to the NL central

by roach on Mar 6, 2007 1:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

... even I, the resident optimist here, am not that optimistic. I sure hope you're right.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 6, 2007 3:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

15-13

he was 15-13 with the blue jays in a better division so 16 wins is hopefully not a stretch.

by roach on Mar 6, 2007 7:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not a stretch, per se, but still unlikely

15 wins was the best year of his career. He had never won more than 12 before that. I think he'll have some jump since he's moving from the AL east to the NL central, but I think this "bounce" is overrated, because he's going to pitch in a very hitter friendly park (as a flyball pitcher), and he's going to have a weak outfield defense (which will have a lot of chances, since he gets a lot of flyballs) behind him.

Still, since he's facing much weaker competition (who hasn't seen him before), I don't think 16 wins is out of the realm of possibility. I wouldn't project that, but it could definitely happen.

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Mar 6, 2007 9:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.....

.....but wasn't the whole "Wrigley is a hitter's park" debunked a while back with a solid study of how often the wind blew in, compared to out pretty much made it league average, with no real big break one way or the other.

Besides the obvious - Go Irish.

by PopeFlick on Mar 6, 2007 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wrigley is really 2 different ballparks

Wrigley is really 2 different parks. One when the wind blows in and one when the wind blows in.

Heck if you include when the wind really is not strong enough to be a factor (less than 10 MPH doesn't seem to make a difference) it's 3 different parks.

I've been to 987 Cubs games in my life. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a player really smack a ball when the wind was blowing in that landed in mid outfield. And on the flipside when the wind was blowing out a player just looked at the ball funny and it landed on Waveland.

Hey this is the first time I realized this season I will attend my 1000th game at Wrigley!

For Cub fans spring training combines the eternal hope of spring with the irrational belief in the impossible.

by kerrysotherwife on Mar 6, 2007 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

are you sure

it's not 988 games that you have been to? ;-)

Here's to a new year!!

by santo for prez on Mar 6, 2007 1:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually it would be at least within a few.

My dad started to keep track when I and my brothers were little kids and I've continued to do so.

For Cub fans spring training combines the eternal hope of spring with the irrational belief in the impossible.

by kerrysotherwife on Mar 6, 2007 2:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

partially true

but it does blow out enough to alter a significant amount of starts. Also, there are other factors that make wrigley a "hitters' park". Lack of foul area is another big reason.

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Mar 6, 2007 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The small foul territory...

... does tend to increase batting averages, but has nothing to do with the HR propensity of the park, or lack thereof.

Take a look at the park factors the last few years -- except for last year (which is skewed because Cub pitchers were so awful), Wrigley Field has not been a good HR park for quite some time.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 6, 2007 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the windy confines

I should know this, but renovations to the park, like the luxury boxes built in the 80's for one thing, have made it less windy there, correct? I'm no expert but I would think those have altered the wind patterns.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Mar 6, 2007 6:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Tangotiger...

...has park factor data averaged out from 2000-2006. Seems like Wrigley has been a (very slight) pitcher's park the past six years. The only way in which Wrigley favors hitters is in the home run department, and that only slightly.

That said, park factors are a very crude measure of the way that parks affect offense. Guys have tendencies to hit balls to specific parts of the field; guys that hit a lot of liners out to left are going to hit a lot of home runs in Minute Maid that would be outs at a lot of other parks; guys that hit balls to straight-away center aren't going to get near as much boost from Minute Maid. Hardball Times has a good look at one park, Fenway, and its particular characterists.

by cwyers on Mar 6, 2007 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It also does....

blow in enough to alter a significant amount of starts.

It's an urban myth that Wrigley is nothing more than hitter friendly. Many studies have shown that to not be true.

BTW - anyone know how Toronot's stadium ranks in the hitter/pitcher park debate?

Besides the obvious - Go Irish.

by PopeFlick on Mar 6, 2007 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Many studies?

I guess I haven't seen all of these studies. From the research I did just now, Wrigley IS a hitters' park, but it isn't as pronounced as people like the idiots over at espn (who don't know how to do research) would like you to think. They've ranked everywhere from the top half to the middle of the pack in the last 6 years in park factor, but they seem to consistently rank in the top 6-10 (making them decidedly a hitters' park).

I must admit, that I was incorrect on Lilly though, because the Rogers Center has tended to rank very close to Wrigley every year, and seems to play as a hitters' park as well. This makes me happy, and slightly more optimistic about lilly's chances.

Here was the methodology used-source espn.com:

Park Factor compares the rate of stats at home vs. the rate of stats on the road.
A rate higher than 1.000 favors the hitter. Below 1.000 favors the pitcher.
PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)(roadG))
* Teams with home games in multiple stadiums list aggregate Park Factors.

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Mar 6, 2007 8:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Soooo...

...are the guys at ESPN idiots, or are they your source for park factors?

by cwyers on Mar 6, 2007 9:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

touche

I know you're just trying to bust my balls, but ti clarify: I was talking about the Joe Morgans of the world, and the BBTN crew. The ESPN website had a nice ranked analysis and used a sound methodology. Stats are stats.

I think you all know what I'm talking about though: a lot of the people who work for ESPN don't know how to do anything other than spout conventional wisdom and ad nauseam catchphrases. If I hear "good rex" v "bad rex" ever again, I'm going to tear my hair out.

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Mar 6, 2007 9:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

when the wind blows

from the hardball times a couple months ago...

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/when-the-wind-blows/

this is for everyone, btw. I assume you have seen it, TD.

What I would like to know is how much, if any, has the Wrigley renovations- luxury suites added in 1989 and the bleacher reconstruction last year- affected wind vectors at the park. This could explain the myth that Wrigley is hitter friendly because it probably was to some extent prior to those changes- especially the 1989 addition. or maybe there was just hash in those brownies I ate today.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Mar 6, 2007 10:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have no stats to back this up.

So, flame away.

But I believe the larger bleacher structure absolutely, positively knocked back several baseballs that otherwise would have been home runs in previous years.

Not many, maybe three or four.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Mar 7, 2007 4:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

When you get...

...to three or four hits, that's not a large enough sample size for the stats to mean anything. Maybe there are a few leading or trailing indicators you could tease out of the data that would be statistically significant indicators, but there's no reason to trust you less than the data at this point.

In three, four years, maybe there will be enough data to evaluate the change in Wrigley.

by cwyers on Mar 7, 2007 9:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the 'luxury' boxes

I would think those would have made a difference. Wouldn't those reduce the wind tunnel quite a bit?
Studies have been done with other ballparks with things like this. I haven't found anything re Wrigley. Oh well, I'm not losing sleep over it.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Mar 7, 2007 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs