Cubs f/x: Numbers Support Maddux Plan

This one surprised me. When I read that Red said Doggie will stretch out the farmers, I didn't realize just how badly they need it.

The numbers? Rate of pitchers going into the sixth inning, by affiliate.

over 2 years ago Harry Pavlidis 20 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Geesh...

Those numbers are pretty scary. 4% for Boise!?!

I realize that the Minor Leagues are less about the games and more about working on stuff, but still…

by CubsWin!Oregon on Jan 14, 2010 3:38 PM CST reply actions

They had certain guys on low pitch counts all year

Cashner being the most notable.

Who were some of the other guys they had start games even though they were typically lifted after 3-4 innings? Josh? Toonster?

Fontenot (fon-te-no): Cajun for "scrappy"

by cubzfan on Jan 14, 2010 3:49 PM CST reply actions

Aaron Shafer

Is the one off the top of my head.

They were pretty careful with Carpenter, although he went more than 3 innings usually.

Pretty much everyone only goes three innings in Boise, although that’s more a factor of trying to get work in for everyone.

by Josh Timmers on Jan 14, 2010 4:12 PM CST up reply actions

These are three year's worth of numbers

Which makes it that much more shocking.

by Harry Pavlidis on Jan 14, 2010 3:51 PM CST reply actions

How do they compare against other systems?

"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez

by DGU on Jan 14, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions

in the link

by jesus christos on Jan 14, 2010 4:00 PM CST up reply actions

It pays to read.

thanks

by DGU on Jan 14, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions

Holy Cow!!!

Uh, there is something to be said for building pitchers’ stamina. Even at the AAA level, the I-Cubs starters failed to get to the sixth inning the majority of the time. That’s just embarrassing. The 44% number for the Smokies isn’t good. Unless there are preexisting injuries, you’ve got to try to extend starters in AA and AAA some. Of course, that’s provided those starters are pitching effectively.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Jan 14, 2010 4:15 PM CST reply actions

Question.

Do you think this has been organizational policy?

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Jan 14, 2010 4:20 PM CST reply actions

In many cases

yes

by Josh Timmers on Jan 14, 2010 4:24 PM CST up reply actions

Dumbasses, the lot of them.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Jan 14, 2010 4:33 PM CST up reply actions

Those numbers are abominable.

Some men learn through what they read. Some men learn through what they're told. Some men have to piss on the railroad tracks. And some men keep on pissin'.

by Ryno Runner on Jan 14, 2010 8:36 PM CST up reply actions

Looking at the numbers

Boise is an aberration. The Cubs have a ton of pitchers there every year and usually eight of them are “starters.” The manager in Boise usually knows who is going to pitch in what inning before the game starts. One guy starts the game on a pitch count and when he reaches that pitch count (usually in or after the third inning) the next scheduled guy comes in and pitches the next three innings. They try to have that guy start the fourth inning as if he were a starter, although it doesn’t always work that way. Unless somebody really gets shelled (and that happens in the NWL), the relievers know which days and how much they’re going to work before the game starts too.

The other thing the Cubs have done is take pitchers who they believe are relievers, like Jose Ceda and Alex Maestri, and make them start games because they think it helps them develop their secondary pitches. The organization really doesn’t believe that they are starters, but they do get the “start” in the boxscore.

The Cubs also usually use three or four relievers to pitch the second game of a double-header. Of course, a lot of organizations do that, so that doesn’t explain those numbers, except that not every organization does it.

The rest of it can be explained with caution. A lot of people around here think the Cubs have blown some arms out overworking them. The Cubs want to make sure there aren’t any more Mark Priors or Lance Dicksons. who is a much better example for those who can remember back that far.

by Josh Timmers on Jan 14, 2010 4:35 PM CST reply actions

Ceda and Maestri don't fit your assumptions - got other examples?

The games started by Ceda or Maestri in the last 3 years, they lasted into the 6th inning at a higher rate than the other starts by their teammates (.50 at Tenn, .31 at Daytona).

by Harry Pavlidis on Jan 14, 2010 6:26 PM CST up reply actions

Jeremy Papelbon?

Marcos Mateo and Casey Lambert. You can check how far those guys went in starts. But I’m not trying to explain all of this with simply that explanation. The biggest reason is a desire to limit innings across the system.

It’s interesting data. The only one that’s a little puzzling is Iowa where they should be trying to stretch people out, but it’s not like the Cubs have had a lot of top starting pitching prospects in Iowa in the past few seasons.

by Josh Timmers on Jan 14, 2010 11:45 PM CST up reply actions

Those are more representative choices

Combined, those three pitchers
Tenn 43 starts, 18 past the 5th (42%)
Daytona 25 starts, 4 (16%)

I agree, there are a lot of localized reasons, but, all told, it does reflect some type of actual or de facto policy.

by Harry Pavlidis on Jan 15, 2010 10:57 AM CST up reply actions

I should also add

the Cubs take a lot more health-risk pitchers in the draft than some organizations do. (Guys like Shafer and Carpenter, for example.) That also explains some of it.

by Josh Timmers on Jan 14, 2010 4:36 PM CST reply actions

Greg is a copycat

This is the plan Mike Maddux and Nolan Ryan have been doing with the Rangers. Maddux has always been against pitch counts at EVERY level. When he was told his son was on a pitch count in little league he exploded. " They have my kid on a F*^&%^%% pitch count ??? He is nine years old !" . The Maddux family is not a big believer in pitch counts.

"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim

by Doggie Stalker on Jan 14, 2010 5:16 PM CST reply actions

And what do guys like the Madduxes and Ryan know about pitching?

Oh, right.

by Harry Pavlidis on Jan 14, 2010 6:44 PM CST up reply actions

Couple comments

First off, great work with collecting data Harry. Don’t know how you have the time to organize.

As noted, I’m not that worried about the low levels. Boise and Peoria piggyback their starters quite a bit. Also, considering the weather at the start of the year in Peoria, they often take it easy there, and in Boise, plenty of arms cycle through. 13 different arms started games for Peoria in 2009. It was a mixed bag of hard-throwing new guys (Kenny McNutt), rehab guys (like Rhee), fringe arms, and so forth. 16 arms started games in 2008, 11 in 2007, and so on. I’m also not that troubled by the numbers in AAA. You have guys that are getting called up to the bigs, so rotation spots/consistency isn’t always there. There’s guys on rehab stints that need to get their work in on a regular situation.

The numbers for AA are somewhat understandable considering the types of arms that were there this past year. You had fringy arms in Hung-Wen Chen and Jeremy Papelbon. Marcos Mateo, Casey Lambert aren’t really starters in terms of arsenal. Cashner we all know about. Russell’s FB inconsistency wasn’t there. The A+ lot was a bit of rushed guys.

Now, the numbers are definitely cause for concern because as Harry notes, it’s 3 years worth of data. The first thing I’d say is that, I think it points to what I’ve been arguing for most of the year – the Cubs system is more of a positional system now. I really hope to see a pitching heavy 2010 draft. We have 3 good arms, and then things fall off quite a bit, and if it wasn’t for the 2008 draft, our arm depth would be weakened. Do we take health risks? Sure, but I don’t believe we take any more than other organizations.

I don’t think you can readily point to some sort of organizational philosophy here either. To say that would imply that the Cubs are always cautious with their arms, and last year, they clearly showed that, if guys were ready, they’d push them (Jackson/Coleman/Searle/McDaniel all started higher than expected).

Am I making an argument that circumstances are at the root of the issue? Somewhat. That said, a couple things can be said. Wilken’s philosophy on athletes has been emphasized – in the 2008 draft, he also tried to take what I call “projectable collegians”. (on a whole side note, watch Justin Bristow this year. I’ve been bringing his name up for a year now. I think there’s a chance he may make a rapid climb into the top 10. This year was really a “get back into it/adjust to ft pitching in the pros”. The stuff has a lot of potential." This combination means that we got some raw arms, arms that might not be ready for a heavy burden. The hope is, that as they develop, their athleticism will help, but it is a factor at the early stages. Along the lines of physique, I’d also note that we aren’t exactly teeming with “horses” – big, burly arms that project to work innings. The main guy that would fit that “mold” would be Jon Nagel.

In conclusion, a philosophy to work on stretching out young arms is nice and positive, and it’s something that should be strived for somewhat (I mean, you always limit your prospects to an extent), but at the end of the day, it really comes down to each individual pitcher’s situations.

by toonsterwu on Jan 14, 2010 8:36 PM CST reply actions