Cubs Pitching Projections.
***Note - These are statistical projections that are intended as general guidlines, not gospel. So many variables come into play such as playingtime, injury, etc. The numbers set about are based on past performance and future projection.
I'm writing this piece to take a look at what type of production the Cubs roster could produce. The numbers are taken from Ron Shandler's Baseball Forcaster. Over the past 3 years I have found these projections to be fairly accurate. Of coarse this is not fool proof. What I have found is that in general it is a good starting point when evaluating players. Are these numbers always accurate? Of coarse not but I have found that Shandler does a real good job at giving you a solid starting point and he does a great job picking potential breakout players as well as identifying players that will not match a past year's production.
Please take this post for what it is. Nothing more then a starting point of what we may be able to expect. I find Ron Shandler's projections to be far more accurate then say Bill James. Is he dead wrong sometimes? Absolutely but sometimes things cannot be forseen such as injury's, trades, and playingtime. And sometimes a player such as Pablo Sandoval just doesn't produce. These numbers are suposed to be taken in a vaccum. For example he projects Adrian Beltre's numbers yet he has yet to sign anywhere and as we all know park/league can affect a player's numbers. So agian take these number's with a grain of salt.
W L SV IP SO ERA WHIP
SP. Ryan Dempster 13 11 0 203 186 3.96 1.33
SP. Carlos Zambrano 9 9 0 153 133 4.12 1.42
SP. Randy Wells 10 11 0 174 121 4.14 1.37
SP. Carlos Silva 11 13 0 149 96 4.95 1.46
SP. Tom Gorzelanny 10 10 0 160 126 4.40 1.50
SP. Casey Cloeman 7 8 0 116 53 4.50 1.49
Wow after being on this site and repeatly hearing how we were OK with our SP I actually started beleiveing it. Just not the case here. You have Dempster who's solid and to be fair more of a elite #2 on a 1st division team them a true ace. That's not a knock on him just a fact. Consider where he would slot for the elite teams, like 3/4. After him Z is a wild card. Shandler has long been saying he was gonna fall off like this from his early workload. Z is no longer an ace and imo not even a #2. I think the best we can hope for is a solid #3 type. Yes he had a great 2nd half but consider the workload was only a half season and his LOB% was a ridiculously high 89% in his 2nd half surge. That rate is unstusainable or about 17% higher then the league average.
Here is what Shandler had to say about Wells:
As expected, couldn't repeat rookie buzz. But 1H H% partly to blamed CMD growth gives a bit of hope. All that said, he's really just not all that skilled.
Wells is our 3 and really is nothing better then a 4 on a bad team and a 5 on a decent team. For all of those who think that the difference between Wells and Garza is negligable please get into a BA chat, or make that statement to a respected scout via tweet, or make a post on a reputable SBN web page and see what the response is. That's all I'm gonna say. We really need to aquire a Garza type pitcher to have a chance to compete this year.
Gorzo we should just trade for a mid level prospect while he has value. I like Gorzo I just don't see him being on the team making or breaking us when we maybe able to get a usefull piece such as a Scott Sizemore. Silva and Coleman....excuse me while I lean over and puke into my waste paper basket. Shandler basically mirrors my thoughts on Coleman but to be fair I did ask Callis in the BA Cubs chat the other day if he thought Coleman could be a SP long term and his response was:
Jim Callis: Sure. He doesn't have the ceiling of some of the Cubs' other arms, but he really knows how to pitch and does all the little things well. Those guys have a habit of sticking around longer than might be expected. By the way, he didn't make the Top 30 because he exhausted his eligibility once he passed 50 innings in the majors
CL. Carlos Mamol 2 3 33 73 109 3.60 1.30
ST. Kerry Wood 4 4 5 58 65 3.88 1.36
ST. Sean Marshall 5 6 3 80 79 3.50 1.25
I'm not gonna run thorugh any other relievers because at this point the rest of the bullpen will not be defined until ST. I also won't post Cahsners projections because it is geared more twoard him being a RP and I think the Cubs will send him back to AAA to start again. I think our late innings is solid now but getting the ball to them might get real ugly.
Overall outside of Dempster our rotation is pretty dicey and we got some good late inning guys but the rest of the staff is a huge question mark. The line up should be solid with a chance to be pretty good but we just don't have the pitching to really be considered a contender for the division. On the plus side I think after Carpenter's AFL showing he and J.Jackson could help solidify the pen and at some point we should see Archer and Cashner in the rotation. So we do have some optimism for the staff. Oh, and again these are just projection stats and to be used as a baseline so take with a grain of salt.
Discuss among yourselves.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Me and Jim Hendry were hoping to see the projections for Jason Berg and Caridad!
Big part of the pen!
The Cubs are going to be in a heated race this year
For fourth place in the NL Central
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies." - Mike Royko
by DTJchris on Jan 7, 2011 8:43 AM CST via mobile reply actions
Essentially, he is projecting a repeat of 2010...
… without considering, as you say, factors such as health and playing time. I realize projections can only be made using past numbers as a guide, but to me, these don’t reflect the realities of the 2011 team.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
What do you disagree with, Al?
I’m not totally on board with the projections — I think Z will be better, and Silva will be a (heh) “non entity.”
But what do you think?
so what changed that is so improved?
over last yr?
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 7, 2011 9:08 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
He'll probably say that the team behind the pitchers will be better.
That Ramirez/Pena will be better than Ramirez/Lee were in 2011, that Quade will bring more energy to the team, that the bullpen will be demonstrably better, etc.
That could certainly affect win totals if it happens. I do think the bullpen will help.
Agreed on the bullpen.
Those three projections all seem to me to be worse than any of them will actually do.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That's not actually what I meant.
I meant that an improved bullpen will make things better for the starters. Marmol’s ERA looks a little high, but otherwise, I think the BA projections are about right.
Well, I think we're both talking about the same thing.
I think the improved bullpen will help the starters, too. But I also think the bullpen will do better than that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
First of all...
… it appears to project based on Zambrano’s full season, rather than the two great months he had.
I’m not saying Z can do that for a full year, but I think that’s a better indicator than lumping the bullpen stuff in there, which that appears to do (the low inning projection).
Also appears to weight Wells’ 2010 season more than his 2009 season. Which is the reality?
Also based on discussions here and other info, it doesn’t seem likely that Silva will pitch that much. Kerry Wood did much better as a setup man than closer.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
its a projection based on his last 3 years mostly
you’re focusing on one hot streak and ignoring the larger portion of the data, same with Wood
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 7, 2011 9:23 AM CST up reply actions
I actually think Wood's BA projection is about right.
And for $1.5 million, well, party on Wayne.
You're probably right about how the projection was done.
I happen to think both will do better.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Agreed
Z should be able to at least break 4.00 for ERA.
Come on Lisa, I'm trying to impress people here. You don't win friends with salad. ~ Homer J. Simpson
Good post, cubsfan.
I don’t agree with everything you or BA said (I actually think Z is gonna be better than most expect, and probably as good as Dempster). But the general point is there:
The Cubs rotation, while relatively deep, isn’t that good.
While some BCBers are clinging to hope that the current rotation will be good enough — “starting pitching wasn’t the problem last year!” — it’s clear that Hendry et. al are working toward improvements, whether they get Garza or somebody else. At least Jimbo has correctly identified what he SHOULD be addressing.
Unfortunately, I’m reminded of Hendry’s unsuccessful efforts to get a right-handed setup man in early 2010. He clearly knew that the daycare bullpen was problematic — despite claims on this site that Caridad/Berg et. al could surprise us and become the next Marmol. But he was unsuccessful in landing someone like Jason Frasor.
That got the Cubs off to a bad start from which they never really recovered, and the pen was a mess until (arguably) September. All of this is a way to say the Cubs need to get another mid-rotation starter before Opening Day — be it Garza or someone else — if they want to be very good in 2011.
i dont think its fair to say
they’re another mid-rotation starter away from being “very good in 2011”
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 7, 2011 9:09 AM CST up reply actions
Well, maybe.
My hope for 2011 is that a lot of guys have career/bounceback years — notably Z, Ramirez and Pena. Honestly, I’m hopeful for those three (though someone like Soriano gives me no hope).
If the Cubs get bounceback years from those three guys — I know that’s a stretch, DCF — and they get steady performances from guys who were good last year (Soto, Castro, Colvin, Marmol, etc.), they still need another starter to have a chance at being very good.
Does that make sense.
if everything goes right
they can be a 90 win team, yes i’d agree with that. Personally, i still dont think that’s VERY GOOD.
I think yankees, red sox, phillies are VERY GOOD
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 7, 2011 9:19 AM CST up reply actions
Couple of Things
First off, people who think that Matt Garza wouldn’t improve the current Cubs rotation significantly are kidding themselves. I wouldn’t trade for him at all costs but it would be a move that helps in the short and long terms(3 more yrs of arb control).
Secondly, if Hendry was so interested in Webb, why haven’t they at least been kicking the tires on Francis and Penny, who both have not had the extent of arm problems that Webb has had? Please keep Silva and Coleman out of the rotation!
by Mmurton on Jan 7, 2011 9:13 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
I think Garza would improve the rotation significantly.
I’m also unsure whether he would improve it enough to warrant trading several top prospects. But until we know what the Cubs would have to give up, it’s a difficult thing to argue.
And my guess is he has kicked the tires on Francis and Penny. It’s just that we haven’t heard about it.
well we just did...
Chirinos, Lee, Guyer, Archer
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 7, 2011 9:20 AM CST up reply actions
Not yet confirmed.
Let’s wait & see what the actual package is.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
bruce miles
already another fanshot up on it
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2011/1/7/1920789/cubs-trading-for-garza
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 7, 2011 9:24 AM CST up reply actions
"Starting pitching wasn't the problem last year."
It wasn’t. That doesn’t mean I think we have Phillies-lite on the north side.
It means the bullpen was a crater, the defense was (at best) “inopportune”, and the offense was inconsistent to non-existent.
So, given that the Cubs were subpar in three of the four aspects to the game… SP indeed “wasn’t the problem”.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Right.
But you’re not saying that the Cubs shouldn’t improve the rotation.
Not at all.
Only that, given context, it is the least of our worries… which is instrumental in describing what state we are in.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Colvin to Phils
For Halladay and Lee. Problem solved!
Seriously, I think the projections are a little pessimistic, but even so, they reek of reality-check. It is painful to watch teams like the Phils make the big moves to stay a contender while the Cubs largely go with a middle-of-the-road staff and pixie dust.
To restate the argument about Garza
Pro: We need to improve our top-end starting pitching. Garza is durable, young, has playoff experience, and his stuff says he could get even better.
Con: Garza is an upgrade over a Wells or Gorzelanny, but not a huge upgrade, and at what cost? Archer, Cashner, or McNutt could all be as good as him starting in 2012-13, which is when the Cubs will next contend.
Pro: Prospects are prospects. You need to upgrade where you can, and Garza is a high upside player. Archer is more of a bullpen type right now, if a very good one, unless he can get his control improved.
Con: No, Archer is probably a #2-3 starter at worst, in a few years. With the Ricketts finances, we need to build from within to have any chance of competing over the next few years.
Pro: With Z and Dempster under contract and not going anywhere, there isn’t room for all the young starters until 2013, even if they did all pan out. At some point, you have to trade somebody to get somebody. Garza is potentially an elite starter.
Con: I guess that’s where we disagree. Wait, what?….We traded for Garza? Who else is in the deal?…
(Your editorial choice as to which voice is Smeagol and which is Gollum).
No one should be untouchable on this roster unless his name is Eliot Ness...or Starlin Castro.
Done.
We really need to aquire a Garza type pitcher to have a chance to compete this year.
Done. Let the competing begin.
by californiachicagoan on Jan 7, 2011 2:14 PM CST reply actions

by 



















