Cubs Notebook » Stats

A Cuban, Advanced Statistics, And Childish Millionaires

Lou — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:23:12 +0000

The Cubs have “reached an agreement” with Cuban pitcher Juan Yasser Serrano, although the deal is not expected to be finalized for about a month. That, according to Carrie Muskat of MLB.com.

Serrano defected from Cuba in April 2009 after being arrested in Cuba in January 2009 for attempted illegal departure. At least we know he’s persistent. The right-hander began pitching in the Cuban professional baseball league at the age of 16. He is believed to be 20 or 21-years old, although MLB Trade Rumors is now saying he may be 22.

Oddly, it has been reported that Serrano threw two simulated innings for Cubs scouts, striking out four and giving up one run on an infield hit, but Muskat reports that a “baseball source” (what does that mean?) denied the report.

Although Muskat’s article didn’t mention money, the website CubanBallPlayers.com says that Serrano will be paid $250,000 by the Cubs. Muskat’s article does say that Serrano still must take a physical and there is additional paperwork that must be completed before the deal is finalized.

It will be interesting to see where Serrano slots in with the Cubs. I would think a guy who has been pitching for five years in the Cuban Serie Nacional would be able to go directly to Double-A or Triple-A, but that remains to be seen.

**********

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the true value of on-base percentage. I’m very accepting of advanced statistics, but I think they need to be viewed in the proper perspective. Baseball is a relatively complex game and expecting to look at a set of numbers (or worse yet, just one number) in order to understand the game is unrealistic (Not to mention that it takes some of the fun out of the game).

Paul Sullivan with the Chicago Tribune recently wrote an article talking about how the Cubs’ front office is beginning to look more and more at statistics in their evaluation of players. I thought the story painted a pretty amatuerish picture of the Cubs front office. Jim Hendry is quoted in the article saying he and his staff have always done more statistical analysis than people thought. He also pointed out that the Cubs have had a “numbers cruncher” (i.e. Director of Baseball Information) on the staff for the past seven years. Even so, Sullivan made it sound like the Cubs had just heard about advanced statistics.

Rob Neyer at ESPN.com then had to jumped on the story. Neyer’s article, entitled Cubs Threaten to Join 21st Century, was kind of snarky. Neyer, a guy who has made a career out of analyzing baseball statistics, seemed almost personally offended that a professional baseball team in this day and age would not have the same type of religious fervor over statistics that he has. Neyer was especially snarky when he wrote, “But Jim Hendry admits that he’ll ‘always be a scouting guy first.’ I wonder if the Cubs would be better if he just went back to being a scout, period.” That was kind of mean.

I like Neyer and I appreciate his statistical perspective on the game. But sometimes he (and others) become almost apoplectic when anyone suggests that baseball can be viewed through something other than a statistical lens. Jim Hendry is not Bill James. Okay, we get it. Is it really necessary to suggest he should lose his job because he doesn’t worship baseball statistics the way some others (I’m not naming names) do? That seems a tad bit harsh to me.

By the way, Jim Hendry probably should lose his job, but it’s not because he doesn’t take baseball statistics as seriously as Rob Neyer.

**********

This next bit of information is almost too weird to believe. As you know, all of the teams in the Cactus League (other than the Cubs) are opposed to the funding plan proposed in the Arizona House of Representatives. The proposal calls for an additional dollar of tax on rental cars and an 8% tax on tickets to all Cactus League Spring Training games. I think the opposition is silly, short-sighted, and will eventually come back to bite the other teams, but what do I know?

Anyway, the Cactus League held their annual kickoff breakfast this past Tuesday at HoHoKam Stadium in Mesa, Spring Training home of your Chicago Cubs. The breakfast is an annual league affair designed to give teams the opportunity to thank their host cities shortly before the Cactus League season begins.

Because the event was being hosted in Mesa (the host rotates each year), four Cactus League teams decided to boycott the breakfast in protest over the proposed legislation that would be used to build a new spring Training home for the Cubs.

According to a report on the Arizona Republic website, the White Sox, Angels, Dodgers, and Reds were the four teams who refused to participate.

“In a nutshell, we continue to feel it’s fundamentally wrong to implement a tax on loyal baseball fans,” Angels spokesman Tim Mead said, acknowledging that his team stayed away for that reason. “We just fundamentally disagree.”

If it’s “wrong to implement a tax on loyal baseball fans,” then who should be taxed? If you’re going to tax someone so you can build a baseball stadium, doesn’t it make sense to tax someone or something that has to do with baseball? Apparently, it’s not “fundamentally wrong” to tax people who rent cars in Arizona. At least Angels spokesman Tim Mead didn’t say he thought it was wrong.

Josh Rawitch of the Dodgers had this to say:

“The Dodgers and White Sox simply feel it is wrong to ask fans coming to Camelback Ranch to pay for another team’s new stadium with a surcharge on their tickets.”

But who paid for the Dodgers new stadium, Josh? Wasn’t it the fans of other teams, as well as people who couldn’t care less about baseball?

It’s important to remember that the four teams who boycotted the kick-off breakfast in Mesa all have benefitted from taxpayer funding for their stadiums. It was taxpayer funding that lured the White Sox, Dodgers and Reds away from Florida into the Cactus League. It was also taxpayer funding that build Camelback Ranch and lured the White Sox out of Tucson, a move that ended up sticking the taxpayers of Tucson with a $30 million bill and no Cactus League team.

Seriously, these teams could not be more hypocritical if they tried. And even if you oppose a proposed tax, is boycotting a breakfast really the best way to voice your opposition, or is it just a completely classless, immature move? Arizona House of Representatives Majority Leader John McComish thinks it’s the latter.

“I think it’s a shame to boycott a kickoff breakfast,” McComish said. “That’s what petulant children do. In this case, they already had their turn at bat, they got their stadium.”

In the end, I don’t see this working out well for the other teams in the Cactus League. If funding can not be found for the Cubs new stadium in Arizona, they’ll likely leave for Florida where funding is already in place and waiting for them. And when they do, the teams of the Cactus League will lose their biggest draw. By some estimates, the Cubs generate 40% of the economic impact that the Cactus League has on the Arizona economy. With fewer Cubs fans, attendance will likely drop across the league, resulting in lower Spring Training revenues for the teams left behind.

Honestly, the strategy being employed by the owners of the other teams doesn’t seem very well thought out. Of course, when all is said and done, they’ll still have new stadiums to go back to that someone else has paid for. So they have that going for them.

Is OBP Really That Important?

Lou — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:52:52 +0000

I’m going to do something dangerous here. I’m going to write a post without knowing how it’s going to end. I’m just going to kind of feel my way through it and hope that I come up with something that makes sense.

I’ve been thinking about on-base percentage a lot recently. I grew up at a time when batting average was the “go to” stat. If a guy was a .300 hitter, he was a good hitter. The closer he got to .200, the less valuable he was.

RBI was also an important stat. The more runs your team scored, the better your chance of winning, so scoring runs and driving in runs was important.

From a baseball statistics perspective, it was a more simple time. Many of today’s stats hadn’t been invented yet, and the ones that were, were either poorly understood or barely utilized.

As I’ve grown older and statistics have become more sophisticated, I’ve tried to understand and embrace them. I don’t want to be a Luddite, unwilling to accept that there is a better way. I want to be one of those guys that gets advanced statistics annd use them to better understand player and team performance.

And yet, I bristle at some of the statistics I run across. Many are difficult to understand and often are unnecessarily complex. Part of the problem is that I’m not particularly adept at mathematics, so some of the stats are simply beyond my ability to comprehend. That’s okay, if they make sense and shed light on a player’s performance, I can accept the numbers even if I don’t understand the equation that created them. After all, I don’t know how to wire a house, but I have no trouble turning on a light switch.

And then there’s on-base percentage. It’s an easily understood statistic. On-base percentage — or OBP — is the percentage of time a player reaches base divided by the player’s number of plate appearances. Unlike batting average, which only considers a player’s hits divided by their official at-bats, OBP considers all plate appearances, and adds walks and hit-by-pitch into the equation.

I like OBP. I think you can tell a lot about a hitter by looking at OBP. It must be a good statistic because there are a lot of people who call it “the single most important statistic” or “the ‘go to’ statistic.” They compare players based largely on their OBP and they often eschew what they see with their own eyes in favor of quoting a player’s OBP.

A while back, I wrote a post explaining why I thought Andre Dawson should be in the Hall of Fame. In that post, I quoted Joe Posnanski, who was opposed to Dawson’s candidacy primarily because his OBP was too low.

Posnanski wrote:

“On-base percentage is not some convoluted modern statistic. On-base percentage is not something new … it goes back to the time before Ty Cobb. On-base percentage is not even about walks. On-base percentage is simply the core of baseball, the very heart of it since the first ball hit the first stick. It is about how many times a batter gets on — and, conversely, how many times he makes outs. It is what the game is all about.

“It isn’t about walks, it really isn’t. That’s one thing everyone seems to miss. You say OBP and everyone says, “Oh, walks.” But that’s not it. Walks and hits by pitch make up a pretty small portion of on-base percentage. Most of it is hitting.”

Joe says that OBP is not about walks or hit-by-pitch, it’s about hitting. In fact, he says walks and hit-by-pitch make up a very small portion of OBP. If that is the case, why do we place such emphasis on OBP over batting average? Why has batting average recently been relegated to the back seat while OBP sits up front?

Despite my immense respect for Joe Posnanski, I have to disagree with him here. OBP is about walks and HBP. If it wasn’t, we’d just stick with batting average. Walks, in particular, play a large role in OBP, not just in the number, but in the way people, particularly those that consider themselves “stat heads,” perceive OBP.

For instance — and I almost hate to bring this up – a lot of “stat heads” were excited (or at least happily approved of) the signing of Milton Bradley by the Cubs last year. In 2008, Bradley led the American League in OBP, and his signing was viewed as a step in the right direction for a Cubs front office that had the reputation of being stat ignorant. Finally, it was claimed, the Cubs had joined the 21st century and were ready to give OBP it’s due.

Forget for the moment Bradley’s disciplinary problems. He is a troubled man, but that is not important to this discussion. What is important is that Bradley had an OBP in 2008 of .436 and a career OBP of .371 (post-2009). In fact, Bradley has had a good or really good OBP every year since 2003. And yet, his stats for runs and RBI have not been very impressive during that period. For instance, he scored 78 runs and had 77 RBI in 2008 with Texas. Those were both career highs for him. As a general rule, Bradley doesn’t score many runs nor does he knock in many runners.

“But wait,” I can hear my sabermetric friends say. “Runs and RBI are team dependent. Plus, Bradley has a history of injury, so he rarely plays a full season.” Fair enough. Then let’s look at Bradley’s numbers in 2003 with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Bradley played 141 games that year, the most in his career.

During the 2004 season, Bradley hit .267 with an OBP of .362. He had 67 RBI and scored 72 runs. The Dodgers scored 761 runs and finished first in the NL West with a record of 93-69. The average number of runs that year in the NL was 751, so the Dodgers were slightly above average in run production.

Contrast those numbers with what Andre Dawson did for the Cubs in 1991. That year, Dawson played 149 games, just eight more than Bradley played in 2004. In 1991, Dawson hit .272 with an OBP of just .302. And yet, Dawson fininshed the year scoring 69 runs and he drove in 104.

In 1991, the Cubs scored a total of 690 runs. The league average was 681 runs.

Let’s compare the numbers:

Games PA Batting Avg OBP Runs RBI Team Runs Lge Avg

Milton Bradley 141 597 .267 .362 72 67 761 751
Andre Dawson 149 596 .272 .302 69 104 690 681

The numbers that should jump out at you are Bradley’s 60 more points of OBP than Dawson and Dawson’s 37 more RBI than Bradley. It’s worth mentioning also that Dawson achieved those 37 additional RBI on a Cubs team that scored 71 fewer total runs than Bradley’s Dodgers.

So, why the big difference in OBP? In 2004, Bradley walked 71 times compared to the 22 times Dawson walked in 1991. Bradley collected six HBP while Dawson collected five. So the big difference is walks.

Walks are good. Walks can lead to good things. I don’t want to diminish the importance of walks. But what good did it do Bradley’s team that he walked so many times in 2004? Obviously, the walks helped Bradley build a nice OBP, but they didn’t help his team all that much. Those walks didn’t do a very good job of scoring runs or pushing other runners across the plate.

Really, we’re not talking about walks here. We’re talking about approach. I hate to resort to my own observations here, but sometimes you can tell things with your eyes. In 2009 with the Cubs, Bradley would go up to the plate with runners in scoring position and he would look for the walk. This sometimes resulted in him earning a base-on-balls, and moved the responsibility of driving in the runner(s) to someone else. Other times (it seemed like a lot of times), it resulted in Bradley looking at strike three. His approach to hitting is to earn a walk if possible so that the burden of driving in runs is put on someone else’s shoulders.

Dawson was just the opposite. He viewed it as his responsibility to drive in runs. And despite the fact that he drew very few walks and had a low OBP, he succeeded in driving in runs.

I don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that I don’t think OBP is important or valuable. That’s not the case. All I’m saying is that OBP is not the end all, be all that some people make it out to be.

Joe Posnanski speaks for a lot of stat heads when he says, “On-base percentage is simply the core of baseball…It is what the game is all about.” I respectfully disagree. Scoring more runs than your opponent is what the game is all about. To the extent that OBP can help you score more runs than your opponent, then I’m all for. But I think it is important to recognize that OBP by itself doesn’t win games.

When I started this post, I said that I wasn’t sure how it was going to end. I’m still not sure. I want to again drive home the point that I am not opposed to OBP. I’m simply saying that OBP by itself is not enough. A player has to have the proper approach at the plate. He has to be willing to get a hit when a hit is needed. Walks are nice, but sometimes the situation calls for a hit rather than a walk.

I also want to say that a good OBP has to be coupled with good RBI and run numbers. You can’t simply dismiss these stats because they are “team dependent.” Over the course of time, these things even out. After a player is around for a few years, they get the opportunity to score runs and drive in runs. RBI and runs are still valuable and important statistics. They should not be cast away to the island of old time, out-dated stats.

OBP is part of the process, it’s not the result. The desired result is winning ball games. OBP is just one of many factors that can lead to the result.

That’s all I’m saying. And that’s how I’m going to end this post.

Pitchers and Catcher Report

Lou — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:57:28 +0000

Tomorrow is the official day when Cubs pitchers and catchers are supposed to report to the Spring Training facility in Mesa. It is the official start of the Spring Training season (games begin in March) and most Cubs pitchers and catchers are already in camp.

According to Carrie Muskat of MLB.com, Carlos Zambrano, Randy Wells, Jeff Samardjzia, Sean Marshall, Jeff Stevens, Tom Gorzelanny, Mike Parisi, David Patton, Jeff Gray, John Gaub, Vince Perkins, and Koyie Hill showed up at least two days early. Most are there to get a jump on Spring Training, but at least one, Tom Gorzelanny, said he simply wanted to escape Chicago’s frigid winter.

**********

The Cubs are expected to go to an arbitration hearing later this week with Ryan Theriot. Maury Brown from The Biz of Baseball put together some thoughts on Theriot and his closest comparable shortstop, Stephen Drew.

This same discussion took place last week on The Cubs Reporter. I agree with those who feel Stephen Drew is the superior shortstop. The problem with this opinion is that the stats don’t really support it. With the except of having greater power, Drew pales in comparison to Theriot in most other stat categories.

My prediction is that Theriot will win the arbitration hearing (he’s asking for $3.4 million, the Cubs are offering $2.6 million). Since Drew signed for $3.4 million, I guess that figure is fair. Even so, I have a hard time agreeing with it.

**********

Does your head ever hurt when you read baseball statistics. Mine sometimes does. I’m trying to become more stat literate, but sometimes, understanding the stat requires more math ability than I possess. Plus, it sometimes seems like a stat is slicing and dicing other stats to come up with the same information.

Stats guru John Sikels of MinorLeagueBall.com feels the same way:

The newest stuff is becoming so granular that I’m having problems making sense of it. I’m a humanities guy, and the most advanced math is beyond my ability to completely comprehend. My personal opinion is that the many of the newest metrics (at least in regards to hitting and pitching) are just more complicated ways to say the same basic truths.

I wrote previously about my desire for one offensive stat that could tell you everything you’d ever want to know about a hitter. Sure, it’s pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but the wish was borne of my desire to condense all of the mathemastically complicated stats into one stat that even I can understand. Unfortunately, baseball stats are probably too complicated for that.

I’m not sure that many of the new stats are really helping us understand baseball any better. If you first have to understand arcane mathematical formulas before you can understand the stat, then most of the population will never understand most stats. Plus, are these new stats really telling us anything new or are statisticians and math majors simply showing off because they can? I could probably figure out 15 different ways to tell you that the grass needs to be cut, but do you really need more than just one easily understood way?

Whenever anyone starts to question the value of baseball statistics, they run the risk of being labeled a heretic. I don’t mean to criticize stats per se. My concern is with the stats that convey the same information as another stat, but in a more convoluted way. If you’re not going to provide any new information, why create a new statistic?

**********

Scout.com listed the 25 best prospects in baseball this past week. Two Cubs graced the top 25. Josh Vitters came in at number 11, while Starlin Castro showed up at number 22.

I don’t necessarily agree with the placement of the two Cubs prospects, but I have to admit that it is somewhat impressive that the Cubs have two prospects on the list. The A’s, Marlins and Twins were the only other clubs to have two prospects on the top 25 list.

**********

David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune comes to the defense of Jerry Reinsdorf and his opposition to what is being referred to as the Cubs tax. If you already know my opinion on Reinsdorf and the other hypocrite MLB owners who have Spring Training facilities in Arizona, then you probably won’t be surprised about how I feel about Haugh’s article.

Haugh writes:

From here, Reinsdorf’s refusal to play ball looks more like a matter of principle than anything personal and a smart move well within his rights as a shrewd businessman.

The words “Reinsdorf” and “principle” should not be used in the same sentence. Reinsdorf’s opposition to the Cubs tax has nothing to do with principle. It has everything to do with money, or more accurately, Jerry Reinsdorf’s money.

Was Reinsdorf being “principled” when his White Sox abandoned Tuscon in favor of Glendale and the $184 million taxpayer-funded Spring Training facility there? Was he being principled when he left the taxpayers holding the bag for more than $30 million in unpaid bonds when he decided to vacate the White Sox Spring Training home in Tuscon for greener (pun intended) pastures? Was he being principled when he put his hand out for taxpayer funding that helped him build U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago? Jerry Reinsdorf doesn’t know the meaning of the word “principle.”

I also have to take exception to Haugh’s contention that Reinsdorf is being a “shrewd businessman” by opposing the Cubs tax. If the funding scheme the Arizona legislature has devised falls flat on it’s face and the Cubs leave Arizona, Reinsdorf’s White Sox will be among the biggest losers. Many fans attending White Sox Spring Training games are in Arizona primarily because of the Cubs, or at least in part because of the Cubs. If the Cubs leave, so will many of the fans. And no one will be hurt more by this exodus than the White Sox.

Adding a dollar surcharge to all Spring Training tickets is a small price to pay to keep the Cubs in Arizona. The surcharge will likely have a negligible impact on overall ticket sales, but if the Cubs leave Arizona, the other MLB teans will see significant decreases in Spring Training attendance. If Jerry Reinsdorf was really a “shrewd businessman,” he would be in favor of the Cubs tax, not fighting it tooth and nail.

What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Bringing It All Together

Lou — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:14:48 +0000

For the past two weeks, we’ve been looking at the Cubs roster to see how well Jim Hendry and the front office have done in spending nearly $140 million. To check out any of the previous posts, visit these links:

My theory going into this series of posts was that by virtue of having the third highest payroll in all of baseball, the Cubs should have one of the best players at almost every position. Of those players, two-to-four should be perennial all-stars.

I recognize that having one of the best players in baseball at almost every position is expensive. That’s why I think a high payroll team still needs to have one or two young, inexpensive players. However, those players should not just be roster filler. They may be young and inexpensive, but they should also be extremely good. An example of such a player would be Dustin Pedroia with the Red Sox. David Wright of the Mets was also this type of player a few years ago. Geovany Soto may be such a player today, although the jury is still out.

To determine if the Cubs roster meets this criteria, in each post I ranked the Cubs players against the starters from each of the five other highest payroll teams. Then, I considered whether or not the Cubs player was among the top players at their position. Here’s how the Cubs players ranked against the players at the same position for the other five highest payroll teams:

First Base — Derrek Lee (5 out of 6)
Second Base — Mike Fontenot (6 out of 6)
Shortstop — Ryan Theriot (4 out of 6)
Third Base — Aramis Ramirez (3 out of 6)
Catcher — Geovany Soto (2 out of 6)
Left Field — Alfonso Soriano (3 out of 6)
Center Field — Kosuke Fukudome (4 out of 6)
Right Field — Milton Bradley (4 out of 6)
Closer — Kevin Gregg (5 out of 6)
Starting Pitchers — Carlos Zambrano (5 out of 30)

                                    Ted Lilly (12 out of 30)
                                    Rich Harden (13 out of 30)
                                    Ryan Dempster (17 out of 30)
                                    Randy Wells (18 out of 30)

Kind of confusing, isn’t it? I know. One of the main reasons is because my hypothesis was wrong. I thought that comparing the Cubs’ roster to the rosters of the five other highest payroll teams would work because I incorrectly assumed that the other five highest payroll teams would have some of the best players in baseball at each position. Having looked at every position from each of these teams, it’s obvious that these other five teams do not have one of the top players at each position. Each of these teams is built differently, but none of the teams has been able to build a starting line-up made up of some of the best players at each position, not even the Yankees.

Although my hypothesis was wrong, I’m not ready to give up on my belief that the third highest spending team in baseball should have some of the top players in the game on their roster. So, do the Cubs have some of the best players in the game on their roster?

Our research showed that two Cubs, Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, were among the best at their position in all of baseball. Alfonso Soriano was close when he was signed, although he has fallen off recently. Soriano gets a bad rap from people who are quick to forget what a terrific hitter he was earlier in his career. If he can regain some of his previous hitting ability, Soriano can still be a top left fielder.

Geovany Soto is a tough call. Was the 2008 version of Soto the real deal, or was the 2009 version the one we’ll see in the future? Either way, I can’t fault the Cubs for handing him the starting job in 2008. He was one of those young, inexpensive players I talked about previously. It remains to be seen which Soto shows up in 2010.

The Cubs pitching staff also qualifies as among the best in baseball. The real weakness is that 1) the Cubs don’t have a true ace, and 2) the pitching staff as currently constituted will not be as good in 2010 as it was in 2009. The loss of Rich Harden and Ted Lilly’s inability to pitch for the first month or more of 2010 will take its toll on the Cubs.

What about the other positions? Starting Fukudome and Bradley in center and right field respectively was uninspired. Acquiring Bradley was a clear mistake that forced Fukudome to move from right field, where he was good, to center field, where he wasn’t so good. Neither player qualifies as one of the best at their position, making the Cubs outfield one of the weakest among contending teams.

Ryan Theriot straddles the line between mediocre and poor among shortstops. He combines the ability to be nothing special on defense with a below average OPS+. The Cubs need a top shortstop and Theriot doesn’t qualify.

Mike Fontenot is among the worst second basemen in baseball. He is not the type of player a club with a $140 million payroll should have in their starting lineup. Even so, as of this writing, the Cubs appear ready to give Fontenot another shot in 2010, unless Jeff Baker, a more versatile but equally as bad second baseman, can unseat him.

Finally, the Cubs had one of the weaker closers in baseball as their closer in 2009. There really was nothing in Kevin Gregg’s history that indicated that he could be a top-notch closer. However, he was relatively inexpensive, so Jim Hendry signed him and hoped for the best.

As I conducted my analysis, I kept coming back to this last statement. Jim Hendry has a history of signing players and hoping for the best. He signed Milton Bradley to be a middle-of-the-order run producer, even though Bradley had never shown the ability to fill that role before. That fact, and Bradley’s past behavior should have given Hendry pause. But instead, Hendry signed Bradley and hoped for the best.

He signed Gregg and hoped for the best, despite the fact that there really was no evidence in his past history that indicated that Gregg could be a reliable closer. It should have been clear that Gregg was not the type of closer a contending team would want on their roster, yet Hendry took the leap of faith.

Finally, there was nothing in Mike Fontenot’s background that should have indicated to anyone that he could be a successful everyday second baseman on a contending team, yet Jim Hendry handed him the job and kept his fingers crossed. The unnecessary risk back fired badly and he’s done nothing this off season to correct the problem.

The Cubs have not done a good job of spending their money. They have the third highest payroll in baseball, yet they have a roster that is more reminiscent of a middle-of-the-pack team. And it’s Jim Hendry’s job to make sure this doesn’t happen.

I’ve been a big supporter of Hendry’s over the years. However, after taking an in-depth look at the roster, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that he has not done a good job of building this team. A change in perspective is needed, and I don’t think that change can take place by keeping the same people in their current positions.

The Cubs needed a change in culture a few years ago. They needed to stop thinking of themselves as small spenders. They are a large market team with one of the highest revenue sources in the game, and they needed to start acting like one. That happened under the direction of John McDonough and Jim Hendry. The Cubs also rebuilt their farm system under the direction of Jim Hendry.

Now, another change is needed. The Cubs need to view themselves as players for most every big name free agent. They need to be viewed as a likely destination for top players when they are put on the trading block. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Hendry is the man for the job. Although he has shown a capacity to trade for players that are being dumped by their current team, he has not shown much ability or willingness to trade his own players or top prospects.

The Curtis Granderson situation earlier this off season was a good example. Despite his shortcomings, Granderson is considered one of the top center fielders in baseball. He would have been a perfect fit for the Cubs. Even so, Hendry was unwilling to get too deeply involved. Detroit wanted top prospects in exchange for Granderson. The Yankees were willing to deal their prospects in exchange for a proven commodity. Hendry refused to include the Cubs top prospects in any sort of deal. As he has done in the past, he has deemed some unproven, but highly regarded prospects as untouchable. This approach cost the Cubs a difference maker in center field and all they have to hang their hats on is the potential of some of their young players.

The botton line to all of this is that the Cubs need to get better. The need to spend their money to build a perennial contender. They need to change the way they build their roster. As much as I like and respect Jim Hendry, I’m not convinced that he’s the guy to make the shift in approach and get the job done.

What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Starting Pitchers

Lou — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:40:20 +0000

With the third highest payroll in baseball in 2009, the Cubs put together a roster that is arguably the worst of the top six spending teams in the Major Leagues. My complaint isn’t with the money they spent. A large market club like the Cubs with the high annual revenues they have should be one of the top spending teams. And honestly, $140 million should be enough to build a perennial winner. So my complaint isn’t about the money they spend. It’s about how they spend it.

My opinion is that the Cubs, by virtue of having the third highest payroll in baseball, should have have some of the top players in the game on their team. Year-in and year-out the Cubs should have five or six of the top position players in their starting line-up, three or four all-stars, and a couple of younger, less expensive players who are capable and on the verge of stardom.

In this series of posts, I’m examining the Cubs roster to see if they are meeting this expectation. I’m analyzing the roster position by position. To read previous posts, check out these links:

Today, I’d like to look at starting pitchers. Today’s analysis is going to be a little different than previous posts. Because we will be looking at 30 starting pitchers rather than just six position players or closers, there won’t be room to rank each player based on stats from the previous two years. Instead, I’ll compile the stats behind the scenes, and list the overall rankings here.

Also, although I’ll be considering 2008 stats (as well as career stats), I won’t be ranking the pitchers for 2008 as I have done in previous posts. The overall ranking will be for 2009, although again, previous and career stats will be considered.

When it comes to ranking starting pitchers, there’s a lot of subjectivity that comes into play. For instance, one pitcher may have better stats than another, but they may not have been as consistent as another pitcher or haven’t been performing at as high of a level. A lot of things go into ranking the pitchers and I’ll be the first to admit that my own biases come into play.

Also, keep in mind that the ranking is based on the start of the 2009 season. So a pitcher that had a teriffic 2009 may not rank as highly as you might think. Stats from 2009 are considered, but they are discounted a bit since the GM could not have known going into the season how well (or poorly) the pitcher would do.

With all of this in mind, here is how I ranked the starting pitchers for the six highest payroll teams:

C.C. Sabathia (Yankees)
Johan Santana (Mets)
Jon Lester (Red Sox)
Josh Beckett (Red Sox)
Carlos Zambrano (Cubs)
Cole Hamel (Phillies)
A.J. Burnett (Yankees)
J.A. Happ (Phillies)
Andy Pettite (Yankees)
Daisuke Matsuzaka (Red Sox)
Justin Verlander (Tigers)
Ted Lilly (Cubs)
Rich Harden (Cubs)
Joba Chamberlain (Yankees)
Joe Blanton (Phillies)
Tim Wakefield (Red Sox)
Ryan Dempster (Cubs)
Randy Wells (Cubs)
Rick Porcello (Tigers)
Chien-Ming Wang (Yankees)
Jamie Moyer (Phillies)
John Maine (Mets)
Brad Penny (Red Sox)
Brett Myers (Phillies)
Edwin Jackson (Tigers)
Jeremy Bonderman (Tigers)
Armando Galarrraga (Tigers)
Mike Pelfrey (Mets)
Tim Redding (Mets)
Oliver Perez (Mets)

Space prohibits me from defending or explaining each pitcher and their place in the rankings, but let me explain a few. At the top of the list, there is a good argument to move Jon Lester up to the top and move Johan Santana down a few spots. I was satisfied that Sabathia belonged at the top of the list, but I struggled a little with Santana. I think some people would have moved Beckett ahead of Lester as well. Wherever you put these pitchers, I think it is clear that they will end up at or near the top.

I’m afraid I might be letting my Cubs fan side come out a little too much by ranking Zambrano ahead of Hamel, especially following Hamel’s 2008 performance. I think there is a strong argument to move Hamel and J.A. Happ above Zambrano, but in the end I decided to stick with Big Z.

Some will say that Harden is ranked too high while others will say he is too low. I think Harden is a heck of a pitcher. When he’s healthy, he’s one of the best. Unfortunately, he has had a difficult time staying healthy and he has a habit of not pitching very deep into a game. If Harden would start pitching deeper in games, I’d gladly move him up in the rankings. However, at least based on 2009, it appears that he needs to stay at around five innings per game to stay healthy.

Is Tim Wakefield ranked too high? I’ve always really liked Wakefield. I think he’s one of the most underrated pitchers in baseball. He’s consistent year-in and year-out. Because of that, I think he gets taken for granted.

Did I rank Randy Wells too low? Based on his 2009 performance, I did. However, as a rookie heading into 2009, not a lot was known about him. Was 2009 the real deal? We’ll have to wait and see. For now, I don’t think he deserves to be ranked any higher.

The bottom third of the list can probably be flip-flopped a lot of ways. One thing is certain though. The back end of the starting rotations for the Tigers and Mets is really weak.

Even when you consider all of the other starting pitchers in baseball, the Cubs look pretty good. Zambrano is not a true ace, but I think it’s safe to say that he is one of the top 20-25 pitchers in baseball. Should the Cubs have a true ace? Yeah, probably. But I’ll save that argument for another day.

Bottom Line: When it comes to starting pitching, the Cubs did pretty well. They have one of the top five starters (of the six teams surveyed) and their other starters all rank in the middle ten. Pitching was a strong suit for the Cubs in 2009. In fact, I think a strong argument can be made that the Cubs starting pitching staff helped them to a winning season despite the offensive woes the team experienced throughout the year.

Things are not looking quite so rosy for 2010. Rich Harden is no longer with the club and Ted Lilly will miss a month or more at the beginning of the season while he recovers from shoulder surgery. In addition to counting on Randy Wells to repeat his 2009 performance, the Cubs are expecting some or all of Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, Jeff Samardjzia, and Mike Parisi to step up and fill a role in the starting rotation.

For our purposes, it’s safe to say that the Cubs had one of the stronger rotations in baseball in 2009. At least as far as the starting rotation goes, the Cubs spent their money wisely.

What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Closer

Lou — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:43:07 +0000

The Cubs are spending a lot of money on their payroll. In 2009, they spent nearly $140 million, good for the third highest payroll in all of Major League Baseball. Only the Yankees and Mets out-spent the Cubs last year.

On the surface, it appears that both the Yankees and Mets got some of the top players in the game for the money they spent. For the Yankees, names like Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, and C.C. Sabathia immediately spring to mind. For the Mets, guys like David Wright, Carlos Beltran, Johan Santana, and Francisco Rodriguez top the list. But what about the Cubs? Are any of their players among the best at their position in baseball?

My premise is simple. If you have the third highest payroll in all of baseball, then you should have one of the top players at just about every position. Is that happening with the Cubs? I’m examining that question with this series of articles. To read previous posts in this series, click on these links:

Today, I’d like to look at closers. The closers we will be examining are:

Mariano Rivera (Yankees)
Francisco Rodriguez (Mets)
Kevin Gregg (Cubs)
Fernando Rodney (Tigers)
Brad Lidge (Phillies)
Jonathan Papelbon (Red Sox)

Here’s how the closers rank based on 2009 salary:

Mariano Rivera ($15 million)
Brad Lidge ($11.5 million)
Francisco Rodriguez ($8.5 million)
Jonathan Papelbon ($6.5 million)
Kevin Gregg ($4.2 million)
Fernando Rodney ($2.7 million)

I like to start my analysis of 2009 by looking at what the players accomplished in 2008. It gives me an idea of what type of momentum they had going into 2009 and helps me understand what the GM was thinking when they signed/traded for the player prior to 2009, or decided to keep the player in their current position in 2009.

With that in mind, here’s how the closers ranked based on 2008 WAR:

Mariano Rivera (WAR 3.1)
Jonathan Papelbon (WAR 3.0)
Brad Lidge (WAR 2.2)
Francisco Rodriguez (WAR 1.8)
Kevin Gregg (WAR 0.7)
Fernando Rodney (WAR 0.4)

Next, let’s compare the pitchers based on 2008 ERA+:

Mariano Rivera (ERA+ 317)
Brad Lidge (ERA + 225)
Jonathan Papelbon (ERA+ 198)
Francisco Rodriguez (ERA+ 198)
Kevin Gregg (ERA+ 127)
Fernando Rodney (ERA + 91)

Finally, let’s look at 2008 WHIP:

Mariano Rivera (WHIP 0.665)
Jonathan Papelbon (0.952)
Brad Lidge (WHIP 1.226)
Kevin Gregg (WHIP 1.282)
Francisco Rodriguez (WHIP 1.288)
Fernando Rodney (WHIP 1.587)

In 1988, Mariano Rivera was obviously the cream of the crop. Jonathan Papelbon also had an outstanding year. Based on the three stats we looked at above, Brad Lidge had a good year. But when you factor in his 41 saves in 41 save opportunities, you can see that it was a remarkable year for Lidge.

The other three closers were at least a step below Rivera, Papelbon and Lidge. Francisco Rodriguez had an impressive 62 saves in 69 chances, but the other two closers were nothiong special. Even so, Jim Hendry must have seen something in Kevin Gregg following the 2008 season. He allowed the Cubs former closer Kerry Wood to leave via free agency and he signed Gregg to a $4.2 million contract.

Moving on to 2009, here’s how the closers did based on WAR:

Mariano Rivera (WAR 2.0)
Jonathan Papelbon (WAR 1.9)
Fernando Rodney (WAR 0.3)
Francisco Rodriguez (WAR 0.3)
Kevin Gregg (WAR -0.3)
Brad Lidge (WAR -0.7)

Brad Lidge had a train wreck of a year. He was a mess. But at least based on WAR, Kevin Gregg was almost as bad. Gregg’s WAR indicates that the Cubs would have been better served bringing a replacent level closer up from AAA.

Here’s how the pitchers ranked based on ERA+:

Jonathan Papelbon (ERA+ 253)
Mariano Rivera (ERA+ 243)
Francisco Rodriguez (ERA+ 111)
Fernando Rodney (ERA+ 104)
Kevin Gregg (ERA+ 95)
Brad Lidge (ERA+ 59)

For the first time in our study, Papelbon knocks Rivera off the top step. Gregg’s ERA+ indicates that he is a below average closer, but it’s nowhere near as bad as Lidge’s ERA+. Lidge was simply awful in 2009.

Finally, let’s compare the closers based on their 2009 WHIP. Here’s how they rank:

Mariano Rivera (WHIP 0.905)
Jonathan Papelbon (WHIP 1.147)
Francisco Rodriguez (WHIP 1.309)
Kevin Gregg (WHIP 1.311)
Fernando Rodney (WHIP 1.467)
Brad Lidge (WHIP 1.807)

Rivera had a WHIP below 1.00 again. He ended the year with 44 saves and only two blown saves. Fernando Rodney’s 2009 stats did not look particularly strong, but he finished the season with 37 saves in 38 opportunities. Of the group, Gregg had the fewest saves with 23 in 30 chances.

Ranking the closers based on averall stats and performances, I came up with this list:

Mariano Rivera (Yankees)
Jonathan Papelbon (Red Sox)
Francisco Rodriguez (Mets)
Brad Lidge (Phillies)
Kevin Gregg (Cubs)
Fernando Rodney (Tigers)

After Lidge’s horrible 2009, it was hard to rank him 4th. However, based on his career numbers, he definitely deserved to be ahead of Gregg and Rodney.

I think there is an argument to be made that Rodney should be ranked ahead of Gregg. Again, I deferred to their career numbers. However, I think it is fair to say that moving forward, Rodney is the more valuable closer. His stock is rising while Gregg’s is falling.

It’s plain to see that Kevin Gregg is not one of the elite closers in baseball. He ranks at or near the bottom of the list of the six closers we examined. When you factor in other closers not part of our survey such as Joe Nathan, Trevor Hoffman, Heath Bell, and others, it’s clear that Gregg is not a top closer.

Bottom Line: Allowing Kerry Wood to leave via free agency was probably the proper move for the Cubs following the 2008 season. However, signing Kevin Gregg was not the proper move. He was not an elite closer prior to 2009 and the Cubs had no reason to believe he would be an elite closer in 2009. Again, it was more wishful thinking on Jim Hendry’s part.

Gregg lost his closing role to Carlos Marmol during the 2009 season and the Cubs appear ready to move forward with Marmol as the closer in 2010. Is Marmol an elite closer? I don’t think so. He led all NL relievers in BB/9 in 2009 and he was third among all NL pitchers for hit batsmen. When Marmol is right, he is difficult to hit. But when he is wrong, which happens far too often, he simpy can’t throw strikes. That’s not a quality you want in a closer.

To give you an idea, in 2009, Marmol had a WAR of 0.6, an ERA+ of 132, and his WHIP was 1.459. He allowed 7.9 walks per 9 innings and he hit 12 batters in just 74.0 innings pitched. These stats are a recipe for disaster as a closer.

The Cubs are once again entering a season in 2010 hoping and praying that their sub-par closer can somehow catch lightning in a bottle. It could happen, but the odds are against it. At some point, the Cubs need to stop applying band-aids to their needs and actually add a top player. The closer position would be a good place to start.

What Can You Get For $140 million?: Right Field

Lou — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:36:24 +0000

In the past several years, the Cubs have gone from an under-spending team to the team with the third highest payroll in 2009. The change was good and needed. For years, the Cubs, a big market, high revenue team, were spending enough to field a team, but not enough to field a winning team.

Today, considering the Cubs payroll, the team should be a perennial playoff contender. However, the money the team is spending is not being reflected in the talent level of the players they have on their roster.

Here’s my hypothisis: The Cubs payroll is appropriate. They should be one of the top payroll teams in baseball. In return for spending the type of money being spent, the Cubs should be expected to have one of the top players in the game at just about every position. However, it’s my feeling that is not happening.

In this series of articles, I’m examining each starting player from the Cubs 2009 roster and comparing that player to the players at the same position on the other five highest payroll teams to see how the Cubs roster stacks up. In addition, I’m taking a look at the very best players at each position and comparing them to the Cubs players to see if the Cubs players are among the best in Major League Baseball.

To read about the methodology I’ll be using, or to read my analysis of other players and positions, click on the links below:

Today, I’d like to look at right field. Here are the players we will be looking at:

Xavier Nady (Yankees)
Ryan Church (Mets)
Milton Bradley (Cubs)
Magglio Ordonez (Tigers)
Jayson Werth (Phillies)
J.D. Drew (Red Sox)

Here’s how the players ranked based on 2009 salary:

Magglio Ordonez ($18 million)
J.D. Drew ($14 million)
Milton Bradley ($9 million)
Xavier Nady ($6.5 million)
Ryan Church ($2.8 million)
Jayson Werth ($2.0 million)

If you’ve been following along up until now, you know that I like to start be looking at the stats from 2008. It gives us an idea of what the player was doing the year before the year we are interested in (2009) and it helps to understand why the player was in the opening day lineup for one of the highest payroll teams in baseball.

To begin, let look at how the players ranked based on 2008 WAR:

Jason Werth (WAR 5.3)
Milton Bradley (WAR 4.5)
J.D. Drew (WAR 4.2)
Xavier Nady (WAR 4.0)
Magglio Ordonez (WAR 3.0)
Ryan Church (WAR 1.6)

Looking a little more at 2008, let’s see how the players compare based on OPS+:

Milton Bradley (OPS+ 161)
J.D. Drew (OPS+ 137)
Xavier Nady (OPS+ 127)
Magglio Ordonez (OPS+ 126)
Jayson Werth (OPS+ 121)
Ryan Church (OPS+ 106)

I’m struck by how well every right fielder in the survey did in 2008. Ryan Church was just slightly above average, but everyone else did extremely well.

Milton Bradley in particular had a great 2008 while with the Texas Rangers. In fact, he led the AL in OBP and his 2008 performance helped earn him a three-year contract with the Cubs.

Next, let’s look at the same statistics, but for 2009. Let’s start with WAR:

J.D. Drew (WAR 4.7)
Jayson Werth (WAR 4.7)
Magglio Ordonez (WAR 1.8)
Milton Bradley (WAR 1.0)
Ryan Church (WAR 1.0)
Xavier Nady (WAR-0.1)

Nady scored so low because he was injured during the second week of the season and did not return to the lineup for the Yankess for the remainder of the season. WAR considers how much a player actually plays, so the statistic values players who stay healthy and in the lineup higher than it does players who spend time on the DL. Church’s WAR score was also effected by the time he was out of the lineup.

How do these players compare based on 2009 OPS+? Let’s have a look:

J.D. Drew (OPS+ 129)
Jayson Werth (OPS+ 128)
Magglio Ordonez (OPS+ 109)
Milton Bradley (OPS+ 99)
Xavier Nady (OPS+ 95)
Ryan Church (OPS+ 92)

As a group, the right fielders we are looking at had a much worse year in 2009 than they did in 2008. Drew and Werth were the exception, but everyone else saw their production fall off significantly.

In particular, Milton Bradley had a very poor 2009. He went from being one of the hitting stars in all of baseball in 2008 to being below average in 2009. Off the field, 2009 was also pretty bad for Bradley. Entire volumes have been written about Bradley’s behavior problems during his one year with the Cubs, so I won’t rehash them here, other than to point out that his behavior issues made Bradley an even less valuable player than his numbers alone would suggest.

Taking into consideration the stats we’ve looked at here, as well as other considerations like fielding, age, career stats, etc., let’s see how the six right fielders compare to one another.

J.D. Drew (Red Sox)
Jayson Werth (Phillies)
Magglio Ordonez (Tigers)
Milton Bradley (Cubs)
Xavier Nady (Yankees)
Ryan Church (Mets)

I think an argument can be made that Nady should be ahead of Bradley. However, I’m of the opinion that Nady is overrated. Over their careers, Bradley has been the superior hitter. Of course, Bradley’s personality always has to be taken into consideration. After his display in Chicago in 2009, there’s no way I would ever want Bradley on my team, no matter how well he hits. But I do think it’s fair to say that he is a better player than either Nady or Church.

Of the top payroll teams in baseball, I would definitely rank Drew, Werth and Ordonez ahead of Bradley. Opening up the rankings to all of the other right fielders in baseball, I would include Ichiro, Justin Upton, Bobby Abreu, Michael Cuddyer, Andre Ethier, and host of others ahead of Bradley. It’s pretty clear that Bradley is not one of the top right fielders in the game.

Botton Line: Milton Bradley had a career year in 2008 and it earned him a multi-year contract with the Cubs. Jim Hendry’s limited view of Bradley’s career bought the Cubs a right fielder with a high OBP, a lack of real production, and an apparent personality disorder. It also added a right fielder to the Cubs roster that clearly is not one of the best in the game.

It’s hard to seperate the player’s performance from his personality (at least in Bradley’s case), but if I could, I would see a player who has a good batting eye and has shown an ability to draw a walk over the course of his career. However, I wouldn’t have to look very far to realize that Bradley is not much of a power hitter nor is he much of a run producer, the very thing the Cubs said they hired him to do.

It was a monumental fail on Hendry’s part to bring Bradley into the fold. He was signed to be a middle-of-the-order run producing bat, but there was nothing in Bradley’s history to gave the indication that he was that type of player.

On top of having to ignore Bradley’s past on-the-field performance in order to hire him to do a job he wasn’t cut out to do, Hendry had to ignore Bradley’s past history of behavior problems. Bradley had shown an inability to control his emotions at almost every stop he made during his MLB career. Just as he did by giving the starting second base job to Mike Fontenot, Hendry was guilty of wishful thinking when he signed Bradley to play right field. Signing Milton Bradley was just another example of the Cubs inability to distinguish a middle-of-the-road player from one of the top players in the game.

What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Center Field

Lou — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:01:59 +0000

This series of articles was prompted by my belief that 1) the Cubs, by virtue of being the third highest payroll team in baseball in 2009, should have one of the top players at each position, and 2) the Cubs roster does not compare favorably with the other highest payroll teams.

I’m please that the Cubs are one of the top spending teams in the major leagues. Considering the size of their market and there considerable revenue advantages, they should have one of the top payrolls. However, I don’t believe their roster is nearly as good as it can be based on the amount they spend.I’ve been analyzing each position and comparing the player the Cubs have at that position to the players the five other biggest payroll teams have at that position. To read the previous posts, visit these links:

Today, I’d like to turn my attention to center field. The center fielders that we’ll be looking at are:

Brett Gardner (Yankees)
Carlos Beltran (Mets)
Kosuke Fukudome (Cubs)
Curtis Granderson (Tigers)
Shane Victorino (Phillies)
Jacoby Ellsbury (Red Sox)

Based on their 2009 salary, this is how they rank:

Carlos Beltran ($18.5 million)
Kosuke Fukudome ($11.5 million)
Curtis Granderson ($3.5 million)
Shane Victorino ($3.125 million)
Jacoby Ellsbury ($449,500)
Brett Gardner ($414,000)

As we look at these players, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, although Gardner was the opening day center fielder for the Yankees in 2009, Melky Cabrera actually played the bulk of the season in center. Even so, at the start of the season, Gardner was tops on the depth chart in center for the Yanks. That’s why we’ll be looking at him rather than Cabrera.

Also, even though Fukudome is primarily a right fielder and was signed by the Cubs to play right field, he started the season in center and played the majority of his games there. So we’ll be comparing him to the other team’s center fielders.

Let’s start by taking a look at how these players did in 2008. Looking back will give us an idea of how they did the year prior to the year we are interested in (2009) and give us some idea of why their team felt they should be their team’s starting center fielder in 2009. First, let’s look at how the players rank based on their 2008 WAR:

Carlos Beltran (WAR 6.7)
Shane Victorino (WAR 4.1)
Curtis Granderson (WAR 3.7)
Jacoby Ellsbury (WAR 3.3)
Kosuke Fukudome (WAR 1.8)
Brett Gardner (WAR 1.1)

Beltran had a big year for the Mets in 2008. Victorino also had a good year, helping to lead the Phillies to a World Series Championship.

Fukudome did not have a good year. As you’ll recall, 2008 was the Fukudome’s first year in the U.S. polaying Major League Baseball. He started out strong, but then faded badly as the season progressed.

Next, let’s see how the center fielders ranmk based on 2008 OPS+:

Carlos Beltran (OPS+ 129)
Curtis Granderson (OPS+ 123)
Shane Victorino (OPS+ 106)
Kosuke Fukudome (OPS+ 89)
Jacoby Ellsbury (OPS+ 87)
Brett Gardner (OPS+ 53)

Keep in mind that the “average” MLB player has a score of 100. Anything less than that is considered below average. In 2008, based on OPS+ (and just about any other measure), Fukudome was below average.

In 2009, this is how the center fieldres ranked based on WAR:

Curtis Granderson (WAR 3.4)
Shane Victorino (WAR 3.4)
Carlos Beltran (WAR 2.9)
Kosuke Fukudome (WAR 2.3)
Brett Gardner (WAR 2.1)
Jacoby Ellsbury (WAR 1.9)

In 2009, Beltran missed a lot of time due to injuries. WAR takes into account how often you are in the lineup. Even so, he was still more valuable than Fukudome. In fact, Fukudome had 499 at-bats in 2009 compared to 308 ABs for Beltran, yet Beltran was still the more valuable player.

Based on 2009 OPS+, the center fielders ranked like this:

Carlos Beltran (OPS+ 143)
Shane Victorino (OPS+ 109)
Kosuke Fukudome (OPS+ 104)
Curtis Granderson (OPS+ 100)
Jacoby Ellsbury (OPS+ 97)
Brett Gardner (OPS+ 93)

I was surprised that Fukudome scored as high as he did. Altough he was just slightly above average, I didn’t think he’d even be that high. I’m also surprised that Ellsbury didn’t do better. I expected him to score higher. I may have to re-evaluate my belief that the Cubs should try to trade for him.

When all is said and done, this is how I would rank the center fielders:

Carlos Beltran (Mets)
Curtis Granderson (Tigers)
Shane Victorino (Phillies)
Kosuke Fukudome (Cubs)
Jacoby Ellsbury (Red Sox)
Brett Gardner (Yankees)

Beltran is obviously the class of the field. When he’s healthy, he’s arguably the best center fielder in the game (at least the best hitting).

Granderson and Victorino are a close call. In the end, I gave the nod to Granderson because of his higher career OPS+ (113 vs. 99), but it could have gone either way.

I ranked Fukudome ahead of Ellsbury based on what they’ve done over the past two years, but truthfully, I would prefer to have Ellsbury in center field going forward.

Brett Gardner brought up the rear. The reason this is surprising is that he is the one weak link in the Yankee’s 2009 opening day starting lineup. This explains why the Yanks replaced him with Melky Cabrera last year.

When comparing Fukudome against other center fielders, he simply does not match up. Beltran, Granderson, and Victorino are obviously better players than Fukudome. Then if you consider other center fielders such as Denard Span (one of my favorites), Torii Hunter, Matt Kemp, Michael Bourne, Franklin Gutierrez, and others, it become clear that Fukudome is not one of the top center fielders in baseball.

Even if you compare Fukudome to right fielders (his normal position), he does not compare favorably. The Cubs took a chance by signing Fukudome. I understand their desire to increase their profile internationally, but by just about all accounts, Fukudome has been a bust.

Bottom Line: What we’re trying to determine in this post is whether or not the Cubs have one of the top center fielders in baseball. I think we showed pretty clearly that they do not. Fukudome was a highly touted plasyer from Japan and the Cubs took a chance by signing him. Unfortunately, the risk didn’t pay off.

I give the Cubs credit for trying something different to improve the ball club. Unfortunately, Kosuke Fukudome was probably not the right guy to take a chance on. He’s been a disappointment during his time with the Cubs and he’s not the caliber of player that the third highest payroll team in baseball (based on 2009 payroll) should have in the starting line up.

What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Left Field

Lou — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:00:37 +0000

For the the past few days, we’ve been looking at the Cubs 2009 roster and seeing how it compares to other teams with high payrolls. When I started the project, my thinking was that 1) with such a high payroll (the third highest in baseball), the Cubs should have one of the top players in the game at almost every position, and 2) the Cubs roster pales in comparision to other big spending teams.

Check out these links to read the earlier posts from this series:

Today, I want to look at left field. It’s a little tricky examining the outfield positions because players can and do move from one outfield slot to another fairly easily and often. To make things a little easier, I’ll be considering each outfield position as an individual position and I’ll only be comparing each Cubs outfielder to outfielders from the highest payroll teams who play the exact same outfield position.

Here are the left fielders we’ll be examining:

Johnny Damon (Yankees)
Daniel Murphy (Mets)
Alfonso Soriano (Cubs)
Josh Anderson (Tigers)
Raul Ibanez (Phillies)
Jason Bay (Red Sox)

Let’s take a look at how the left fielders compare based on salary:

Alfonso Soriano ($16 Million)
Johnny Damon ($13 Million)
Jason Bay ($7.5 million)
Raul Ibanez ($6.5 million)
Daniel Murphy ($401,000)
Josh Anderson ($400,000)

This is the first time we have seen a Cubs player at the top of salary rankings for a position. I think it is easy for Cubs fans to forget what an elite player Alfonso Soriano was prior to the 2009 season. He had been a 40/40 guy when he was in Washington and he helped lead the Cubs to the playoffs in 2007 and 2008. Obviously, things didn’t go according to plan in 2009 and the bloom is a bit off the rose with Soriano. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

In looking at the 2009 rosters and the performance of each player during that season, I like to begin by looking at the performance numbers for the 2008 season. It gives me a feel for how the players was performing heading into the 2009 season and gives me an idea of why and how they ended up in the starting lineup for a high payroll team in 2009.

With that in mind, let’s look at how the players rank based on 2008 WAR:

Johnny Damon (WAR 3.6)
Alfonso Soriano (WAR 3.1)
Jason Bay (WAR 2.9)
Raul Ibanez (WAR 2.2)
Daniel Murphy (WAR 0.9)
Josh Anderson (WAR 0.7)

Although Soriano had a terrific year in 2008 — .280/.344/.532 with 29 homeruns and 79 RBI — he missed significant time on the DL which hurt his WAR score. As an aside, I like this aspect of WAR. Even the best player in the world can’t help his team if he is not on the field playing.

To get a feel for how these players hit in 2008 despite spending time on the DL, let’s look at their OPS+:

Jason Bay (OPS+ 134)
Daniel Murphy (OPS + 129)
Raul Ibanez (OPS+ 123)
Alfonso Soriano (OPS+ 119)
Johnny Damon (OPS+ 118)
Josh Anderson (OPS+ 101)

Wow, that’s surprising. There’s a few things that jump out at me about this list. First, although Jason Bay split his 2008 between Pittsburgh and Boston, the change of teams obviously didn’t hurt his production. Daniel Murphy finished second in OPS+, but it should be pointed out that he only had 131 ABs. Of course, he made the most of those at-bats and it earned him a starting job in left field for the Mets in 2009.

Although Soriano finished fourth out of our six left fielders, he still had a decent OPS+. Probably not the kind of OPS+ you’d pay $16 million for, but still not horrible.

Next, let’s move to 2009 WAR:

Raul Ibanez (WAR 4.2)
Jason Bay (WAR 3.5)
Johnny Damon (WAR 3.0)
Daniel Murphy (WAR 0.6)
Josh Anderson (WAR -0.3)
Alfonso Soriano (WAR -0.7)

Soriano was really bad in 2009. To give you an idea of how out-of-character Soriano’s 2009 season was, it was the first time in his career that he put up a WAR ranking below 1.5. That should give Cubs fans reason to hope that he bounces back in 2010. However, until that happens, Soriano’s 2009 performance will remain fresh in our minds.

Moving on to OPS+ for 2009. How did Soriano rank?

Jason Bay (OPS+ 134)
Raul Ibanez (OPS+ 131)
Johnny Damon (OPS+ 126)
Daniel Murphy (OPS+ 95)
Alfonso Soriano (OPS+ 84)
Josh Anderson (OPS+ 52)

This should be no surprise. The top three guys had very good years. The bottom three guys did not. We saw it with out eyes and the stats bear it out.

As for Soriano, 2009 was the worst OPS+ he has put up in his career since he became a full-time starter in 2001. Again, it gives reason to believe that 2010 will be a much better year for Soriano.

So how do the left fielders rank? Let’s take a look.

Jason Bay (Red Sox)
Raul Ibanez (Phillies)
Alfonso Soriano (Cubs)
Johnny Damon (Yankees)
Daniel Murphy (Mets)
Josh Anderson (Tigers)

In many ways, this is an odd group to rank. Murphy has lost his starting job with the Mets (although he may play first base), Anderson lost his starting job last year during the season and was eventually sold to the Royals. He recently signed a minor league deal with the Reds.

Jason Bay moved from the Red Sox to the Mets and Johnny Damon is still looking for work. I think it’s safe to say that, with the exception of Jason Bay, none of the other players in our survey are among the very top of left fielders in the game. In addition to Bay, players such as Carl Crawford, Ryan Braun, and Matt Holliday spring to mind as the games top left fielders. When he’s right, Soriano is among this group, but he certainly wasn’t right in 2009. It remains to be seen if he can get back to being one of the game’s top hitters in 2010.

Bottom Line: Judging Alfonso Soriano at after the horrendous season he had in 2009 is a tough thing to do. His reputation in the minds of a lot of baseball fans has been tarnished and he’s going to have to prove himself going forward to regain the reputation he once had.

Having said that, my quest is to judge the Cubs left fielder based on his standing going in to the 2009 season to determine if he is one of the top left fielders in baseball. Despite his dismal showing in 2009, Soriano was one of the top left fielders in the game going into the season. His combination of power and speed is rare in the game and it is what convinced the Cubs to sign him to a long-term, high dollar contract.

Going forward, I’m very concerned about is going to happen to Soriano’s ability. Already, we’ve seen injuries to his legs that has significantly reduced his running ability. But looking back to when Soriano was signed and remembering his performances during the playoff years of 2007-08, it’s understandable why the Cubs wanted Soriano in their outfield. For that reason, I can fault them for starting him in left field. Entering the 2009 season, he was one of the better left fielders in baseball.

What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Catcher

Lou — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:23:12 +0000

If a team is going to outspend all but two other teams in Major League Baseball, shouldn’t they be expected to sign/trade for some of the top players at just about every position? That’s my thinking. I also think that the Cubs are spending the payroll dollars like the big boys, but their roster cannot stack up to the big boys.

In this series of posts, I’m looking at the Cubs roster one position at a time to see just how their roster compares to the other five highest spending teams in baseball. To see what I’ve come up with so far, take a look at these previous posts:

What Can You get For $140 Million? (Introduction and Methodology)
What Can You get For $140 Million?: First Base
What Can You get For $140 Million?: Second Base
What Can You get For $140 Million?: Shortstop
What Can You get For $140 Million?: Third Base

Today, I’d like to take a look at the catchers for the six teams with the highest payroll. The catchers we will be looking at are:

Jorge Posada (Yankees)
Brian Schneider (Mets)
Geovany Soto (Cubs)
Gerald Laird (Tigers)
Carlos Ruiz (Phillies)
Jason Varitek (Red Sox)

To begin, let’s see how the catchers stack up based on salary:

Jorge Posada ($13.1 million)
Jason Varitek ($5 million)
Brian Schneider ($4.9 million)
Gerald Laird ($2.8 million)
Geovany Soto ($575,000)
Carlos Ruiz ($475, 000)

There’s an important point I’d like to make here that I’ve alluded to in previous posts, but haven’t made as strongly as I would like. While it is true that I feel the third highest payroll in baseball should allow the Cubs to put one of the top players in baseball at just about every position, the reality is that some positions will still need to be filled by young, inexpensive players. The reason for this is two-fold. First, it allows the team to take full advantage of their payroll dollars. In other words, by spending less at a couple of positions, the Cubs will have more money to spend on the remaining positions.

Having said this, it doesn’t mean that the Cubs (or any other big spending, playoff caliber team) should just throw any old player on to their roster. For instance, I’ve already been very critical of the Cubs for starting Mike Fontenot at second base in 2009. The Cubs had no reason to believe he would be successful as a starter. It was just wishful thinking to put Fontenot in that position.

Second, every team, even the high payroll teams, need to develop their own talent. And you can’t properly develop them unless you give them an opportunity at the big league level. Of course, that assumes that they have earned a shot at the big league level.

Putting young, inexpensive players in the starting line-up is fine, provided they can actually do the job. Just filling a hole with a warm body should never be acceptable for a team spending as much money as the Cubs spent in 2009.

Okay, let’s get back to the catchers. Let’s start by looking at how each catcher did in 2008, leading up to the 2009 season. First, let’s rank the catchers based on their 2008 WAR:

Geovany Soto (WAR 4.6)
Brian Schneider (WAR 1.6)
Gerald Laird (WAR 1.3)
Jason Varitek (WAR 1.3)
Jorge Posada (WAR 0.8)
Carlos Ruiz (WAR 0.5)

I knew that Soto had a good year in 2008. After all, in 2008 he won the NL Rookie of the Year Award. However, I didn’t expect him to score so much higher than all of the other catchers in the survey. Both Ruiz and Posada spent time on the DL in 2008 (Posada missed most of the year), explaining their low WAR scores.

How did the catchers do in OPS+ in 2008? Let’s find out.

Geovany Soto (OPS+ 118)
Jorge Posada (OPS+ 103)
Gerald Laird (OPS+ 91)
Brian Scheider (OPS+ 87)
Jason Varitek (OPS+ 73)
Carlos Ruiz (OPS+ 63)

Again, Soto was the cream of the crop in 2008. I’m actually a little surprised by how poorly the group as a whole hit. Of course, many teams prefer to go with a defensively-oriented catcher, so maybe this shouldn’t be a surprise.

Moving into 2009, how do the catchers compare based on WAR?

Jorge Posada (WAR 4.0)
Carlos Ruiz (WAR 2.2)
Geovany Soto (WAR 1.3)
Jason Varitek (WAR 1.3)
Gerald Laird (WAR 0.9)
Brian Schneider (WAR 0.3)

Posada and Ruiz were healthy in 2009, accounting for their increase in WAR. Soto was not healthy. He spent time on the DL because of a shoulder injury. Because of this, I’m surprised Soto’s WAR score is as high as it is. I had expected a lower ranking.

Let’s next look at these same players based on 2009 OPS+:

Jorge Posada (OPS+ 133)
Carlos Ruiz (OPS+ 104)
Jason Varitek (OPS+ 80)
Geovany Soto (OPS+ 79)
Brian Schneider (OPS+ 67)
Gerald Laird (OPS+ 64)

Jorge Posada had an excellent year in 2009. Not so much for our boy, Geovany. Soto started 2009 playing for Puerto Rico in the World Baseball Classic. It was at the WBC that Soto failed a drug test for using marijuana. Soto also gained some weight in the off season prior to the 2009 season which took its tool on the catcher.

Which is the real Soto? The catcher who excelled in 2008, or the one that struggled mightily in 2009? The Cubs think that 2008 is the real Soto and they’re counting on him to have a bonuce back year in 2010.

So, how did the catchers in our survey rank overall?

Jorge Posada (Yankees)
Geovany Soto (Cubs)
Carlos Ruiz (Phillies)
Jason Varitek (Red Sox)
Brian Schneider (Mets)
Gerald Laird (Tigers)

It’s amazing that a 38-year old catcher leads the pack, but I don’t even think it’s close. Soto appears to be the second best catcher on the list. An argument could be made that Varitek is a better catcher than Ruiz. At one time, I think that was true, but I’d take Ruiz over Varitek now.

So, do the Cubs have one of the top catchers in all of baseball? If you give me a choice, I’m going to take Joe Mauer, Victor Martinez, and Brian McCann over Soto, but I think it is fair to say that Soto is in (or near) the top five catchers in baseball. His performance in 2010 will determine whether he stays in the top five or falls into the also-ran category.

Bottom Line: The point I made earlier about needing a couple of young, inexpensive players in the line-up applies to Soto. He worked his way up through the minors and gave the Cubs’ front office reason to believe that he could be an everyday MLB catcher. This is the type of risk-taking that is acceptable for the third biggest spending team in the league.

What isn’t acceptable is the experiment the Cubs have been running at second base and shortstop. Neither Mike Fontenot or Ryan Theriot is a good enough player to be filling a line-up spot for one of the top payroll teams. Fontenot in particular does not deserve to be an everyday player.

Soto does not fit into the same category as Fontenot and Theriot. Soto showed enough promise to get a shot as the everyday catcher for the Cubs. He made the most of that opportunity in 2008, putting himself near the top of MLB catchers. Provided Soto rebounds from a sub-par 2009, the Cubs have one of the better catchers in the game.