Lilly Rotation; Zambrano Bullpen

[CubFaninHydePark]

So last year I counted that the Cubs were in 63 1 or 2 run games, the year before, 70.  There's the old addage: "you win a third, lose a third, and what you do with the other third is what determines your season."  If you consider these games "close" enough to have gone either way, then that makes sense. (And sure, there will be some false games in here--that were made close in the 9th, but there are also probably as many games that were close but made not close in the same manner.)

Assuming each starter gets an equal share of those, Z would influence somewhere between 12 and 14 "close" games as a starter.  Leaving about 20 starts to influence either the more sure L's or W's, assuming a healthy Z making all of his starts.

The Cubs have already played 8 one or two-run games this season and are 2-6 in them.  Assuming that over the season, the range of 63-70 is accurate, that means the Cubs have 55-62 "close" games left.  If Z would pitch in 2/3 of those, he'd influence about 40 "close" games.

If he can have a strong and positive influence on most of those 40 close games, then he might do more for the team winning than he would in the 15 or so starts he'd get in the same "close" games.

I'm not sold on the move, but I think that the knee-jerk reaction so far lacks evidence that's persuasive.  I'm no statfag, but I think there's reason to believe that a 1-inning Z influence in close games could lead to more wins than a 5-9 inning Z influence every fifth day.  That is, I don't think that Lou is outside the bounds of reason here, even if he's wrong.

I'll tell you what, I like the idea of having a crappier starting pitcher in there so he can put the Cubs down 5-4 and then Z can come into that close game and INFLUENCE it by not allowing any more runs and then the Cubs offense gets stymied by Matt Lindstrom.

OOOORRRRRRR....

The Cubs could just throw Z out there for 6-7 innings early, put the Cubs up 4-2 (or 3) and give them a 70% chance of winning.

But Z is only going to do that X number of times a year--and given his injuries and inconsistencies, I'm not sure how big that number will really be.  It's not like we're talking about Halladay or Santana here.  Z's replacement is still going to give you some good games--not as many, but since starts are so limited, we probably aren't talking a huge number.  

If Z comes in the 8th instead of Samar;aljkfda or Gray, with a 1-run lead, how much does he increase the winning %?  10%  20%  Less, more?  I don't know.  But the way the righties are pitching out of the pen, I feel like it'd have to be a lot.

But really, what the math would come down to is whether the difference in expeted wins between Z and his replacement starter is greater than the Cubs' expected win totals with Z pitching in spots where someone in the pen would pitch now (excluding Marmol).  I don't think the answer to that is as obvious as everyone else thinks it is.

Your best pitchers should pitch the most innings.

By putting him in the bullpen, the Cubs guarantee that Z will pitch fewer innings than Sloth or Tubby.

This is dumb and makes the Cubs less good at baseball.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I'd say that Marmol is one of the Cubs' "best pitchers."  Yet he'll probably pitch far fewer innings than any starter and most relievers.  Or is there an unwritten exception to this rule for closers?

But if there is, why not for setup guys?  I think that pitchers should be used wherever they're going to most increase the team's chances of winning.  If this team were built well, Z wouldn't have to go to the pen, since the gap between Z the setup guy and setup guy X wouldn't be worth taking Z out of the rotation.

But it might be the case that the righties the Cubs have suck so bad, Z is better off there than in the rotation, from the perspective of expected wins.  Hendry is to blame for all of this, but if Z is 20% better than Samardakl;jfa or Gray, and Z will pitch in 30 close games with a lead, that's 6 expected wins.  I'm not sold that the difference between Z and his replacement in the rotation (the Cubs' one strength is starting pitching) is 6 games.

[Yeti]

But Z is only going to do that X number of times a year--and given his injuries and inconsistencies, I'm not sure how big that number will really be.  It's not like we're talking about Halladay or Santana here.  Z's replacement is still going to give you some good games--not as many, but since starts are so limited, we probably aren't talking a huge number.  

If Z comes in the 8th instead of Samar;aljkfda or Gray, with a 1-run lead, how much does he increase the winning %?  10%  20%  Less, more?  I don't know.  But the way the righties are pitching out of the pen, I feel like it'd have to be a lot.

But really, what the math would come down to is whether the difference in expeted wins between Z and his replacement starter is greater than the Cubs' expected win totals with Z pitching in spots where someone in the pen would pitch now (excluding Marmol).  I don't think the answer to that is as obvious as everyone else thinks it is.

Inconsistencies? Oh you mean how he averages over 200 innings a year? and over 30 games a year? Fuck. That's clearly not enough. For comparisons sake, let's take a look:
Innings Pitched: (and I used time as fulltime starter to be fair to all of them)
Zambrano: 205
Halladay: 192!!!
Santan: 219

So, Z's in between those two, but definitely not in their league as a reliable pitcher? mk.

Now, to grade quality of their performances, it's tough to use just one stat to say "This definitely shows how good they have all been", but I'm going to use Quality Starts. I like the stat. It can give a quick reference to how often a pitcher does well, but since it's based off of Earned Runs (and those can be screwy), it's not the *best* stat to use, but in this case, it's effective.... sooooooo.....

Zambrano Quality Start %: 62 (Since 2002, it's been: 56, 66, 71, 70, 67, 57, 53, and in 2009 it was 61)
Halladay Quality Start %: 65 (I'm not going to detail his. Z's was shown to show he's not on a decline.)
Santana Quality Start %: 67

So, over the course of a season (and we'll use 33 starts for a season since it's close to actual and it translates to 100 easily), Zambrano has one less QS than Halladay and just under 2 less than Santana... But yea, he's nothing like those two.

Dude, the move sucks. It's dumb. Just go with it.


**I see some others posted while I was typing. If I duplicated anything, I don't give a shit.

[CubFaninHydePark]

But Z is only going to do that X number of times a year--and given his injuries and inconsistencies, I'm not sure how big that number will really be.  It's not like we're talking about Halladay or Santana here.  Z's replacement is still going to give you some good games--not as many, but since starts are so limited, we probably aren't talking a huge number.  

If Z comes in the 8th instead of Samar;aljkfda or Gray, with a 1-run lead, how much does he increase the winning %?  10%  20%  Less, more?  I don't know.  But the way the righties are pitching out of the pen, I feel like it'd have to be a lot.

But really, what the math would come down to is whether the difference in expeted wins between Z and his replacement starter is greater than the Cubs' expected win totals with Z pitching in spots where someone in the pen would pitch now (excluding Marmol).  I don't think the answer to that is as obvious as everyone else thinks it is.

Inconsistencies? Oh you mean how he averages over 200 innings a year? and over 30 games a year? Fuck. That's clearly not enough. For comparisons sake, let's take a look:
Innings Pitched: (and I used time as fulltime starter to be fair to all of them)
Zambrano: 205
Halladay: 192!!!
Santan: 219

So, Z's in between those two, but definitely not in their league as a reliable pitcher? mk.

Now, to grade quality of their performances, it's tough to use just one stat to say "This definitely shows how good they have all been", but I'm going to use Quality Starts. I like the stat. It can give a quick reference to how often a pitcher does well, but since it's based off of Earned Runs (and those can be screwy), it's not the *best* stat to use, but in this case, it's effective.... sooooooo.....

Zambrano Quality Start %: 62 (Since 2002, it's been: 56, 66, 71, 70, 67, 57, 53, and in 2009 it was 61)
Halladay Quality Start %: 65 (I'm not going to detail his. Z's was shown to show he's not on a decline.)
Santana Quality Start %: 67

So, over the course of a season (and we'll use 33 starts for a season since it's close to actual and it translates to 100 easily), Zambrano has one less QS than Halladay and just under 2 less than Santana... But yea, he's nothing like those two.

Dude, the move sucks. It's dumb. Just go with it.


**I see some others posted while I was typing. If I duplicated anything, I don't give a shit.

If you throw out Halladay's two shortened years in '04 and '05, he quickly jumps ahead of the pack, I think.  Also, that he put up those numbers in the AL East has to mean something too.  And throw in his CG's and the bonus effect those can have on a bullpen--Z has at most had 3 in a season in '03...Halladay had 5 in 141.2 innings in '05. 

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

[SKO]

But Z is only going to do that X number of times a year--and given his injuries and inconsistencies, I'm not sure how big that number will really be.  It's not like we're talking about Halladay or Santana here.  Z's replacement is still going to give you some good games--not as many, but since starts are so limited, we probably aren't talking a huge number.  

If Z comes in the 8th instead of Samar;aljkfda or Gray, with a 1-run lead, how much does he increase the winning %?  10%  20%  Less, more?  I don't know.  But the way the righties are pitching out of the pen, I feel like it'd have to be a lot.

But really, what the math would come down to is whether the difference in expeted wins between Z and his replacement starter is greater than the Cubs' expected win totals with Z pitching in spots where someone in the pen would pitch now (excluding Marmol).  I don't think the answer to that is as obvious as everyone else thinks it is.

Inconsistencies? Oh you mean how he averages over 200 innings a year? and over 30 games a year? Fuck. That's clearly not enough. For comparisons sake, let's take a look:
Innings Pitched: (and I used time as fulltime starter to be fair to all of them)
Zambrano: 205
Halladay: 192!!!
Santan: 219

So, Z's in between those two, but definitely not in their league as a reliable pitcher? mk.

Now, to grade quality of their performances, it's tough to use just one stat to say "This definitely shows how good they have all been", but I'm going to use Quality Starts. I like the stat. It can give a quick reference to how often a pitcher does well, but since it's based off of Earned Runs (and those can be screwy), it's not the *best* stat to use, but in this case, it's effective.... sooooooo.....

Zambrano Quality Start %: 62 (Since 2002, it's been: 56, 66, 71, 70, 67, 57, 53, and in 2009 it was 61)
Halladay Quality Start %: 65 (I'm not going to detail his. Z's was shown to show he's not on a decline.)
Santana Quality Start %: 67

So, over the course of a season (and we'll use 33 starts for a season since it's close to actual and it translates to 100 easily), Zambrano has one less QS than Halladay and just under 2 less than Santana... But yea, he's nothing like those two.

Dude, the move sucks. It's dumb. Just go with it.


**I see some others posted while I was typing. If I duplicated anything, I don't give a shit.

If you throw out Halladay's two shortened years in '04 and '05, he quickly jumps ahead of the pack, I think.  Also, that he put up those numbers in the AL East has to mean something too.  And throw in his CG's and the bonus effect those can have on a bullpen--Z has at most had 3 in a season in '03...Halladay had 5 in 141.2 innings in '05. 

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

Ahh, okay, so we're supposed to throw out Halladay's injured seasons but criticize Z for having injury shortened seasons? Also, do you not think the fact that Halladay playing in the American League where they have THE DESIGNATED HITTER YOU FUCKING MORON played just a slight role in him having more complete games? Jesus H. Christ.

[MAD]

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

Wait, what?

[Bort]

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

Wait, what?

I'm sorry. Apparently someone spilled Fucking Insane all over my glasses and I can't clean it off.

Does that say what it looks like it says?

[MAD]

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

Wait, what?

I'm sorry. Apparently someone spilled Fucking Insane all over my glasses and I can't clean it off.

Does that say what it looks like it says?

I'm not going to look this up--I know, as I'm sure many here do, that Denny McClain was the last pitcher to win thirty-- but I'm willing to bet that the last time this happened in the National League everybody here but Stew did not exist.   Hell, outside of Bob Welch (1990) and Steve Stone (1980), I don't think too many people here were alive the last time someone won 25.

[flannj]

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

Wait, what?

I'm sorry. Apparently someone spilled Fucking Insane all over my glasses and I can't clean it off.

Does that say what it looks like it says?

What number below 20 equates to "threatened"?

[Bort]

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

Wait, what?

I'm sorry. Apparently someone spilled Fucking Insane all over my glasses and I can't clean it off.

Does that say what it looks like it says?

I'm not going to look this up--I know, as I'm sure many here do, that Denny McClain was the last pitcher to win thirty-- but I'm willing to bet that the last time this happened in the National League everybody here but Stew did not exist.   Hell, outside of Bob Welch (1990) and Steve Stone (1980), I don't think too many people here were alive the last time someone won 25.

Bearing in mind McLain did it in 1968, the most anemic year for the AL since the deadball era, 30 would be a jaw-dropping achievement for anyone.

[Slaky]

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

Wait, what?

I'm sorry. Apparently someone spilled Fucking Insane all over my glasses and I can't clean it off.

Does that say what it looks like it says?

I'm not going to look this up--I know, as I'm sure many here do, that Denny McClain was the last pitcher to win thirty-- but I'm willing to bet that the last time this happened in the National League everybody here but Stew did not exist.   Hell, outside of Bob Welch (1990) and Steve Stone (1980), I don't think too many people here were alive the last time someone won 25.

Bearing in mind McLain did it in 1968, the most anemic year for the AL since the deadball era, 30 would be a jaw-dropping achievement for anyone.

What about for a pitcher in a world all by himself? In that world, I'd think one could do anything they wanted. Come visit Halladayland. It's magical.

[Brownie]

If Jeff Samardzija gets into 30 games in which the Cubs have the lead this year, he'll threaten 30 wins well before Halladay will.

[Quality Start Machine]

Halladay is in a world all by himself as far as SP's go these days.  I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if he threatened 30 wins this season.

Wait, what?

I'm sorry. Apparently someone spilled Fucking Insane all over my glasses and I can't clean it off.

Does that say what it looks like it says?

I'm not going to look this up--I know, as I'm sure many here do, that Denny McClain was the last pitcher to win thirty-- but I'm willing to bet that the last time this happened in the National League everybody here but Stew did not exist.   Hell, outside of Bob Welch (1990) and Steve Stone (1980), I don't think too many people here were alive the last time someone won 25.

Dizzy Dean in 1934. Pre-Stew, I believe.

[R-V]

CFiHP has now exploded my brains all over the monitor at least 5 times in this thread. Short of Tdubbs and IAN drinking a tub full of fermented bear urine and composing a post together, I had no idea this level of mushmindedness was possible.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Is everyone assuming this move for Zambrano is permanent?

[PenFoe]

Is everyone assuming this move for Zambrano is permanent?

Actually, I think about 5 people said right here in this thread that they thought it was for probably 1 start.