What will Bedard Command if we extend him??? Can we Afford Him?

[i_miss_cal]

Just heard on Mike and Mike that the will announce today. I'd give Bedard a similiar offer in the off-season

[Frobby]

The decision not to lock Bedard up last winter looks worse with every pasing day.

[Sports Guy]

The decision not to lock Bedard up last winter looks worse with every pasing day.

Not a good comp here.

What is up with these Cubs players? Between Zambrano and ARam, they have probably left a combined 40-75 million on the table by not going to FA.

Oh well, good for the Cubs.

[Frobby]

Not a good comp here.

What is up with these Cubs players? Between Zambrano and ARam, they have probably left a combined 40-75 million on the table by not going to FA.

Oh well, good for the Cubs.

You think 5/$90 mm is cheap?

[Fan4Life]

Not a good comp here.

What is up with these Cubs players? Between Zambrano and ARam, they have probably left a combined 40-75 million on the table by not going to FA.

Oh well, good for the Cubs.

I suppose Boras isn't their agent?

[Sports Guy]

You think 5/$90 mm is cheap?

Compared to Zito? Absolutely....5 years is probably too long but it is a hell of a lot better than the 7-8 he would have gotten in FA.

[JTrea81]

The decision not to lock Bedard up last winter looks worse with every pasing day.

We wanted to lock him up, Flanny and Duq just didn't want to pay him market value in the process...

It's very clear we are going to have to put at least 5/75 on the table to get him to consider an extension...

[Sports Guy]

We wanted to lock him up, Flanny and Duq just didn't want to pay him market value in the process...

It's very clear we are going to have to put at least 5/75 on the table to get him to consider an extension...No we don't....This is just absurd.

The only way we have to do this is if Bedard doesn't want to be here and you have to drastically overpay to keep him here.

In that case, trade him.

Not paying Bedard 20 million a year for his 3 arb years.

[Mackus]

People are really overestimating what Bedard will get for the next 2 years through arbitration, that is why Zambrano and Buehrle and others aren't good comps for total contract value for Bedard. Sure, Bedard will get in the $15-18M range for any FA years we buy out, but he won't get even half of that over the first two years of any extension.

Something like $6M, $8M, $15M, $18M with an $18M option with $1M buyout should get it done (4/$48M or 5/$65M).

[JTrea81]

No we don't....This is just absurd.

The only way we have to do this is if Bedard doesn't want to be here and you have to drastically overpay to keep him here.

In that case, trade him.

Not paying Bedard 20 million a year for his 3 arb years.

He's only got two arbitration years left. Give him 9 million in '08, 11 million in '09 and then 18.3 million a year for 2010-2012. I don't think that will be enough to land him though...

[mapierce]

No we don't....This is just absurd.

The only way we have to do this is if Bedard doesn't want to be here and you have to drastically overpay to keep him here.

In that case, trade him.

Not paying Bedard 20 million a year for his 3 arb years.

Bedard only has 2 abr years left. And 5/$75m is probably just a starting point for the contract talk. We need to get him extended in the offseason to build some stability and credibility for this organization. That and he's just nasty as a pitcher.

[Sports Guy]

He's only got two arbitration years left. Give him 9 million in '08, 11 million in '09 and then 18.3 million a year for 2010-2012. I don't think that will be enough to land him though...

He is making under 4 million this year...His arb number this year isn't going to more than double...It doesn't work that way.

He will get 6-7 million next year.

[JTrea81]

He is making under 4 million this year...His arb number this year isn't going to more than double...It doesn't work that way.

He will get 6-7 million next year.

That's fine, I give him the extra money to make him happy and show him that we want him to be here instead of trying to tick him off in arbitration...

[Mackus]

He's only got two arbitration years left. Give him 9 million in '08, 11 million in '09 and then 18.3 million a year for 2010-2012. I don't think that will be enough to land him though...Go look up the number of players who got $9M in their 2nd to last arb year and $11M in their final arb year.

Bedard should get about $14M TOTAL over the next two years.

[Sports Guy]

That's fine, I give him the extra money to make him happy and show him that we want him to be here instead of trying to tick him off in arbitration...

Now you are being ridiculous.

Put a 4 year deal on the table...Be prepared to pay anything from 38-50 million.

Bonderman and Harang are the recent comps...Santana a past comp.

You do that, he signs.

If he doesn't, it is because he doesn't want to be here and then you trade him.

[PoorMike]

Just heard on Mike and Mike that the will announce today. I'd give Bedard a similiar offer in the off-season

Let's say EB was able to get 22M total for his next two years in arb (and that might be high).

.......a 5/90 contract would basically be giving him 23M a year for those last 3 years. That's lunacy.

[geschinger]

That's fine, I give him the extra money to make him happy and show him that we want him to be here instead of trying to tick him off in arbitration...

Isn't that how one ends up getting stuck with bad contracts? Adding extra money for reasons other than performance.

[geschinger]

Now you are being ridiculous.

Put a 4 year deal on the table...Be prepared to pay anything from 38-50 million.

Bonderman and Harang are the recent comps...Santana a past comp.

You do that, he signs.

If he doesn't, it is because he doesn't want to be here and then you trade him.

I don't think 38 has any chance to get it done this offseason. The Cable MLBEI extra money is going to extend the bubble atmosphere through this offseason. My guess is we'd have to go at least 4/48 and I'd set my upper limit at 4/52. I would not go 5 years. The only negative is as we are a couple of years removed from the bubble it will look like we paid way too much.

[Sports Guy]

I don't think 38 has any chance to get it done this offseason. The Cable MLBEI extra money is going to extend the bubble atmosphere through this offseason. My guess is we'd have to go at least 4/48 and I'd set my upper limit at 4/52. I would not go 5 years.

4/38 got Bonderman done last year. 4/35 got Harang done...Same situation, in terms of service time, as Bedard.

[Hoiles23]

You figure he gets something like 7-8 million in 08 and 10-11 in 09, assuming he plays near his current level, and tack on 3 more years at something around 16 million each.

Something like 5/66-68 makes sense to me.

[JTrea81]

Now you are being ridiculous.

Put a 4 year deal on the table...Be prepared to pay anything from 38-50 million.

Bonderman and Harang are the recent comps...Santana a past comp.

You do that, he signs.

If he doesn't, it is because he doesn't want to be here and then you trade him.

I know Zambrano is a bad comp but given all the money that is being thrown out to top and not so top pitchers, we are going to have to pay Bedard 18 million per season for his free agent years. I don't see him signing anything less than a 5 yr deal. And to get him to sign it considering he's still miffed at the FO, we are going to have to show him the money. 5/75 is a very realistic and sane offer given the market and Bedard's situation with the team. But it probably won't get it done seeing as Bedard will get 20 million per season at least on the open market if he keeps having years like this one, therefore we will most likely have to trade him...

[Sports Guy]

I know Zambrano is a bad comp but given all the money that is being thrown out to top and not so top pitchers, we are going to have to pay Bedard 18 million per season for his free agent years. I don't see him signing anything less than a 5 yr deal. And to get him to sign it considering he's still miffed at the FO, we are going to have to show him the money. 5/75 is a very realistic and sane offer given the market and Bedard's situation with the team. But it probably won't get it done seeing as Bedard will get 20 million per season at least on the open market if he keeps having years like this one, therefore we will most likely have to trade him...
Actually, i would be surprised if he signs a 5 year deal...I think he would want to get to FA as early as possible.

[geschinger]

4/38 got Bonderman done last year. 4/35 got Harang done...Same situation, in terms of service time, as Bedard.

Wasn't that before some of the outrageous contracts were handed out thereby skewing the market? Also, while Bonderman was a pretty good pitcher up to that point, Bedards resume blows his away, esp. if he continues to pitch extremly well over his remaining starts. Not to mention the oustide possiblity of having "Cy Young Award Winner" prefacing his name.

[Mackus]

4/38 got Bonderman done last year. 4/35 got Harang done...Same situation, in terms of service time, as Bedard.Those guys are comps, but Bedard is better than both of them plus there is more money being thrown around now, so he should (and will) get more.

I like the offer I suggested a earlier in the thread:
'08 $6M
'09 $8M
'10 $15M
'11 $18M
'12 $18M or $1M buyout

Brings the total contract to a 4/$48M or 5/$65M deal. I think that definitely gets things done and would be a great contract for both Erik and the Orioles.

[JTrea81]

Isn't that how one ends up getting stuck with bad contracts? Adding extra money for reasons other than performance.

If Bedard performs, it's not a bad contract and it would only be for three years beyond 2009. Chances are barring injury he won't regress that much by the time the contract is over. But that is the risk you have to take if you want him on this team beyond 2009. That's why so many of us were arguing that he should have been dealt at the deadline because it's going to be very difficult for him to be extended and chances are at age 28 his future performance won't be anything like this season's. If you can't extend him he has to be dealt this offseason provided he stays healthy and performs the rest of the year...

[Sports Guy]

If Bedard performs, it's not a bad contract and it would only be for three years beyond 2009. Chances are barring injury he won't regress that much by the time the contract is over. But that is the risk you have to take if you want him on this team beyond 2009. That's why so many of us were arguing that he should have been dealt at the deadline because it's going to be very difficult for him to be extended and chances are at age 28 his future performance won't be anything like this season's. If you can't extend him he has to be dealt this offseason provided he stays healthy and performs the rest of the year...

How do you know that??

2008: 6 million
2009: 9 million
2010: 13 million
2011: 16 million
2012: 16 million option.....2 million dollar buyout

4/46 in guaranteed money....Possibly 5/60 if options kicks in...Say it is an automatic option if 380 innings are thrown in 2010 and 2011 combined.

No way he turns that down and if he does, trade him.

[geschinger]

If Bedard performs, it's not a bad contract and it would only be for three years beyond 2009. Chances are barring injury he won't regress that much by the time the contract is over. But that is the risk you have to take if you want him on this team beyond 2009.

Have you read this thread (http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50000)? There is an incredible amount of risk that would be involved. Personally I'm torn, some days I think we should try to get him extended but other days I think we should get a huge package for him and diversify the risk.

My point is that we should be dispassionate when deciding how much to pay a particular player. Determine a players performance is worth to the franchise and be willing to walk away if it crosses that amount. No extra millions to make someone happy, because they've been a good Oriole, because the fans would hate to see us lose him. Doing the opposite is a recipe for disaster.

[mapierce]

4/38 got Bonderman done last year. 4/35 got Harang done...Same situation, in terms of service time, as Bedard.

Except that Bedard is much better than those 2 pitchers. Start with 5/50 and see if he bites.

[Hank Scorpio]

Wasn't that before some of the outrageous contracts were handed out thereby skewing the market? Also, while Bonderman was a pretty good pitcher up to that point, Bedards resume blows his away, esp. if he continues to pitch extremly well over his remaining starts. Not to mention the oustide possiblity of having "Cy Young Award Winner" prefacing his name.

What he said.

Bedard is a better pitcher than these guys, and don't think for a second that Peace's boy doesn't know that. Bedard is the best pitcher in the American League right now, maybe in all of baseball.

I'm bracing for Dave's excessive laughter and Rich Hill comps........... :D

[JTrea81]

My point is that we should be dispassionate when deciding how much to pay a particular player. Determine a players performance is worth to the franchise and be willing to walk away if it crosses that amount. No extra millions to make someone happy, because they've been a good Oriole, because the fans would hate to see us lose him. Doing the opposite is a recipe for disaster.

I agree but we are going to have to give him extra money then we would have had we not ticked him off the first time we approached him with an extension. His career season isn't helping matters either. It might just be better to turn him into players that we can add with Markakis, Wieters and eventually Rowell. We could have a really young talented core to go along with our young pitching. I'd love to get Kershaw and Kemp back from the Dodgers and I think it would still be possible.

[geschinger]

I agree but we are going to have to give him extra money then we would have had we not ticked him off the first time we approached him with an extension.


I don't believe that. It's business, nothing personal. Put a good offer on the table, if he takes it great. If he doesn't, great - we'll trade him for a boatload of talent. Win/Win.

[pactman12]

After hearing about Zambrano's 5 year, 91 million dollar extension from the Cubs, what will it take to extend Bedard.......especially if he ends up winning the CY.

After apparently being insulted by the O's initially lowballing him, it might take and overpayment to get this guy to stay here.

5/100??........6/115??......

I don't know, it would take alot but I think he would be worth it.

I think some people on this board undervalue his impact. It is extremely difficult to find an absolute Ace in this league and it is nearly impossible to win the big one without an Ace.

I love potential we could get in return, but if Bedard keeps it up, he will be worth absolutely every penny. As Frobby said yesterday, since Trembley became manager we are 11-0 when Bedard pitches and 16-25 when he doesn't. You can't put a price on that record......well you can, and it'll prolly be about 20 million a year.

[RVAbird]

After hearing about Zambrano's 5 year, 91 million dollar extension from the Cubs, what will it take to extend Bedard.......especially if he ends up winning the CY.

After apparently being insulted by the O's initially lowballing him, it might take and overpayment to get this guy to stay here.

5/100??........6/115??......

I don't know, it would take alot but I think he would be worth it.

I think some people on this board undervalue his impact. It is extremely difficult to find an absolute Ace in this league and it is nearly impossible to win the big one without an Ace.

I love potential we could get in return, but if Bedard keeps it up, he will be worth absolutely every penny. As Frobby said yesterday, since Trembley became manager we are 11-0 when Bedard pitches and 16-25 when he doesn't. You can't put a price on that record......well you can, and it'll prolly be about 20 million a year.

Sweet Jeebus. Zambrano and Bedard's situations are not related at all. 4/55 or at the most 5/65 should get it done. And I'm being generous.

[JohnD]

You really think so? Because I don't think that'll be enough.

[RVAbird]

Just to clarify, let me break down the 4/55 deal.

Bedard should be able to get 13-15 mil* in arbitration over the next two years. I'll be generous and say we should buy out his two arb. years for 15 mil. Then we grant him two more years at 18 mil per, bringing it to a total of 4/51. If you think he's worth 20 mil per in his two post FA-years (which is the most I'd be willing to go), then that brings it to 4/55. This is more than fair. Granting him a fifth year (at age 33ish) is very risky IMO but if we can lock him down by granting 10 mil or less for that 5th year I think we should consider it. Therefore, I think we might be able to get away with 4/50 and would be willing to go as high as 5/65.

*Total for two years.

[scOtt]

Just to clarify, let me break down the 4/55 deal.

Bedard should be able to get 13-15 mil in arbitration over the next two years. I'll be generous and say we should buy out his two arb. years for 15 mil. Then we grant him two more years at 18 mil per, bringing it to a total of 4/51. If you think he's worth 20 mil per in his two post FA-years (which is the most I'd be willing to go), then that brings it to 4/55. This is more than fair. Granting him a fifth year (at age 33ish) is very risky IMO but if we can lock him down by granting 10 mil or less for that 5th year I think we should consider it. Therefore, I think we might be able to get away with 4/50 and would be willing to go as high as 5/65.
Total? For two years? Yeah, that's about right. Then straight into the 14, 16, 18... range. Depends on how long the deal is. 3/30, 4/45, 5/65, 6/85. All these are in range. And money well damn spent IMO. ;) Only restriction I'd put on would be 5 years total, 6 years if backed into an inescapable corner.

[NICK]

I've thought about this and feel 5/75 is more than fair, and if we offer that, in my opinion, Bedard will take it. However this needs to be offered this offseason not at the last possible minute as we have seen the Orioles do times before with other targeted players or their own players. I don't want to worry about this guy heading into free agency after '09 get it done this winter. I was shocked to see some sites saying Bedard will be offered about 20 mil per etc. Trust me, i know he has been insanely good but its only his second good yr, and first dominant one, has baseballs economics gotten that nuts? BTW (off topic)for the record i also dont see A-rod making that 30+ mill people have whispered of as well.

[scOtt]

I've thought about this and feel 5/75 is more than fair, and if we offer that, in my opinion, Bedard will take it. However this needs to be offered this offseason not at the last possible minute as we have seen the Orioles do times before with other targeted players or their own players.
That's it right there! We need to make Erikkkk KNOW that we want him here. Blow him away! Break the bank.

[RVAbird]

Total? For two years? Yeah, that's about right. Then straight into the 14, 16, 18... range. Depends on how long the deal is. 3/30, 4/45, 5/65, 6/85. All these are in range. And money well damn spent IMO. ;) Only restriction I'd put on would be 5 years total, 6 years if backed into an inescapable corner.

Yeah, total. Honestly, we'll probably have to overspend to keep Bedard here but the numbers I posted are objectively sound. I'd be fine with overspending some, he's an elite player, but the key is to keep the amount of years to 4 or 5.

[weemnj]

Yeah, total. Honestly, we'll probably have to overspend to keep Bedard here but the numbers I posted are objectively sound. I'd be fine with overspending some, he's an elite player, but the key is to keep the amount of years to 4 or 5.

This is where I fear the problem comes in---from his perspective 6 or 7 years would be the goal. With his reliance on the curve, LOOKOUT!

[Fairfax Bird]

Better question, what will he make in his next two years of arbitration. He makes 4.3 this year.

Will he make $8 and the $11 in arbitration the next two years. If so my offer to him would be 3 years and 42million, buying out one year of free agency and ensuring he would make $10 million more than he could in arbitration.

[Mackus]

Better question, what will he make in his next two years of arbitration. He makes 4.3 this year.

Will he make $8 and the $11 in arbitration the next two years. If so my offer to him would be 3 years and 42million, buying out one year of free agency and ensuring he would make $10 million more than he could in arbitration.
He actually makes $3.4M this year, not $4.3M.

If he hits an absolute homerun in arbitration he'll get $6M this year and then about $10M in 2009. I think any contract extension will pay him about $14-15M total over those two years.

4/$48M or 5/$65M is the most it will take, and that's being very generous. People here GROSSLY overestimate how much it will take to extend Bedard.

[rosekeister]

Hypothetical contract offer to Bedard.

2008 $8 million
2009 $12 million
Then 2-3 years at $18 million per year.

That's 4/$56 million or 5/$74 million.

The arbitration years tell Bedard how much the team values him. The 2-3 years at $18 million tell Bedard the O's are willing to pay him top dollar. In return if Bedard turns down the offer, he is telling the Orioles he doesn't want to be in Baltimore and the team can reassess it's next move.

[Sports Guy]

Haven't seen this thread in about 20 hours. lol

[Dr. FLK]

Whatever he wants can be afforded. This team isn't poor. They just need to decide whether he's worth it. And, they also need to weigh the talent they could get in return via trade. But, if they really want to keep him, they certanily can afford it. We aren't the Royals.

[Sports Guy]

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51788

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51881

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51930&highlight=bedard

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51321&highlight=bedard

[os1971]

After hearing about Zambrano's 5 year, 91 million dollar extension from the Cubs, what will it take to extend Bedard.......especially if he ends up winning the CY.

After apparently being insulted by the O's initially lowballing him, it might take and overpayment to get this guy to stay here.

5/100??........6/115??......

I don't know, it would take alot but I think he would be worth it.

I think some people on this board undervalue his impact. It is extremely difficult to find an absolute Ace in this league and it is nearly impossible to win the big one without an Ace.

I love potential we could get in return, but if Bedard keeps it up, he will be worth absolutely every penny. As Frobby said yesterday, since Trembley became manager we are 11-0 when Bedard pitches and 16-25 when he doesn't. You can't put a price on that record......well you can, and it'll prolly be about 20 million a year.


Offer him 4/60, no more. That gives him the security of a big contract and an opportunity to get another big payday. Gives us 4 years and the opportunity to put together a winner. If he doesn't bite, then trade him.

[olehippi]

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51788

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51881

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51930&highlight=bedard

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51321&highlight=bedard

Wow! Someone with lots...and lots....of spare time should post a list of all the proposed "trade" threads you have started.....:rolleyes:

[George]

Offer him 4/60, no more. That gives him the security of a big contract and an opportunity to get another big payday. Gives us 4 years and the opportunity to put together a winner. If he doesn't bite, then trade him.

4/60 seems OK to me, but it's just idle speculation.

There is no right answer to the poster's question, because it does not depend on unilateral action by the O's. If we know what other teams would offer in trade for Bedard, then a reasoned answer can be fashioned. Only MacPhail can know his trade value and only he will have the relevant data to make a decision. The question is not whether the O's can afford him, but rather what is the optimal use of the money?

[Boston Dave]

I f I can trade Bedard and Tejada for a young shortstop, LFer, pitcher, and a top AA prospect, I do it. And you know what? I bet we could.

I'd rather keep Bedard, but I just have this gut feeling he's going to do a BJ (that is, a BJ Ryan! :D )

[RayFink1e]

How many Aces are there in the AL? 5 at the most prolly. And the Orioles have plenty of money if they want to use it

[El Gordo]

How many Aces are there in the AL? 5 at the most prolly. And the Orioles have plenty of money if they want to use itBut do they have enough to buy the BJ's?:eek:

[RVAbird]

I f I can trade Bedard and Tejada for a young shortstop, LFer, pitcher, and a top AA prospect, I do it. And you know what? I bet we could.

I'd rather keep Bedard, but I just have this gut feeling he's going to do a BJ (that is, a BJ Ryan! :D )

That's why they really need to figure out his contract statust his offseason. Offer the 4/55 ish deal and if he gets stubborn and refuses it then either trade him before the season or at the deadline (whenever his value would be higher). However, I have a feeling the FO's "win in 2009" strategy just got a little boost in their minds, with the prospects of Wieters, Reimold, Hoey and others added with the new relationship with Boras (see: Teix in 2009), so they might be inclined to hold on to Bedard until the end.

[RayFink1e]

Mazzone's pitchers have always gotten better with age and learned to pitch with what they got. Bedards still got one more pitch in his arsenal in the changeup that will only make him better.

Bedard is making little money this year. He has made alot in his career but I doubt its enough that if he got hurt today he wouldnt have to work again. Unless he invested really well. Plus he would prolly want to make sure his family never had to work again.

[BirdMan]

This is where I fear the problem comes in---from his perspective 6 or 7 years would be the goal. With his reliance on the curve, LOOKOUT!

I would be more worried if relied on a slider. There have been plenty of pitchers that relied on the curve that never had career problems. ie Bert Blylevin.

Also for the most part pitchers that have had T J surgery have stronger tendons
than before the surgery

[weemnj]

I would be more worried if relied on a slider. There have been plenty of pitchers that relied on the curve that never had career problems. ie Bert Blylevin.

Also for the most part pitchers that have had T J surgery have stronger tendons
than before the surgery

For every Blylevin there is a Greg Olson or Sele-----
On the other hand can anyone name a pitcher who required a second TJ?

[Go_Os]

Now you are being ridiculous.

Put a 4 year deal on the table...Be prepared to pay anything from 38-50 million.

Bonderman and Harang are the recent comps...Santana a past comp.

You do that, he signs.

If he doesn't, it is because he doesn't want to be here and then you trade him.


If Bedard was a free agent now he'd get a 5 year/$100 Million+ deal. We better expect to pay 5/$85. I think he's worth all of that. He's that good.

[geschinger]

Mazzone's pitchers have always gotten better with age and learned to pitch with what they got.


I know it's been said that Mazzone will honor his contract so I expect him here next year, but he might not be around after that. Bedard might not get to grow old under his tutelage.

[Frobby]

I might ask -- can the Orioles afford NOT to keep Bedard?

Seriously, this team needs an ace to have any chance to compete in this division. We have one. The only way I'm trading him is if he makes it crystal clear he will never re-sign here.

Offer him 5 years, $62.5 mm.

[scOtt]

For every Blylevin there is a Greg Olson or Sele-----
On the other hand can anyone name a pitcher who required a second TJ?
Matt Riley.

[scOtt]

I would be more worried if relied on a slider. There have been plenty of pitchers that relied on the curve that never had career problems. ie Bert Blylevin.

Also for the most part pitchers that have had T J surgery have stronger tendons
than before the surgery
Yes. They replace a tendon with a ligament, which is stronger than before.

[davearm]

Everybody seems to be fixed on 4 or 5 year deals.

Everybody also seems to have the perception that Bedard is better than Zambrano (LOL at that, but whatever).

Zambrano's salaries in his last two years of arb, and first three of FA:
$6.5M
$12.4M
$15M
$17.75M
$17.875M

Now by waiting, Z also secured himself another $41M on top of that, for years 10 and 11.

If you want to get Bedard to forego the chance at the extra $41M or whatever that he could potentially get by waiting, then you better at least match the 4/52 or 5/70 that Z got in the same timeframe.

4/52 with a player option for a 5th year @ $18m would be reasonable: 7, 12, 15, 18, (18).

Now the other way to go would be to shave down the dollars quite a bit, but give the player the option of opting out of the contract after year three.

5/60 that could be truncated to 3/30 at the player's option: 7, 11, 12, (14), (16). The Cubbies did something similar to this with ARam.

[JohnD]

Everybody also seems to have the perception that Bedard is better than Zambrano (LOL at that, but whatever).



Who would you rather have this year? And down the line? You really think it's that laughable?

[Eight]

Everybody also seems to have the perception that Bedard is better than Zambrano (LOL at that, but whatever).
.

Since OD 2006:

EB: 3.40 ERA, 9.31/2.98/0.86 K/BB/HR/9
Z: 3.60 ERA, 8.22/4.52/0.94 K/BB/HR/9

Not to mention one has seen his ERA decline every season since 2004 and the other has seen his rise every season since 2004.

Anyone who thinks that's a laughable comparison is probably still living in 2005.

[Sports Guy]

Everybody seems to be fixed on 4 or 5 year deals.

Everybody also seems to have the perception that Bedard is better than Zambrano (LOL at that, but whatever).

Zambrano's salaries in his last two years of arb, and first three of FA:
$6.5M
$12.4M
$15M
$17.75M
$17.875M

Now by waiting, Z also secured himself another $41M on top of that, for years 10 and 11.

If you want to get Bedard to forego the chance at the extra $41M or whatever that he could potentially get by waiting, then you better at least match the 4/52 or 5/70 that Z got in the same timeframe.

4/52 with a player option for a 5th year @ $18m would be reasonable: 7, 12, 15, 18, (18).

Now the other way to go would be to shave down the dollars quite a bit, but give the player the option of opting out of the contract after year three.

5/60 that could be truncated to 3/30 at the player's option: 7, 11, 12, (14), (16). The Cubbies did something similar to this with ARam.

The bottom line is Zambrano was more successful up until this year...I would guess(although i don't know) that he has earned more in arbitration up until this point...True???

[davearm]

Who would you rather have this year? And down the line? You really think it's that laughable?
This year Bedard has been what Zambrano has been his entire career -- consistently dominant.

This year Zambrano has been what Bedard has been his entire career -- dominant for several-month stretches, and average to bad for several-month stretches.

Basically the two have had a role reversal this season.

If you want to think that reversal is permanent, then you take Bedard going forward. Otherwise you take Zambrano going forward.

Regardless, this is the first season where the comparison is worthwhile in the first place -- previously Zambrano had been head-and-shoulders better year in and year out.

[Sports Guy]

This year Bedard has been what Zambrano has been his entire career -- consistently dominant.

This year Zambrano has been what Bedard has been his entire career -- dominant for several-month stretches, and average to bad for several-month stretches.

Basically the two have had a role reversal this season.

If you want to think that reversal is permanent, then you take Bedard going forward. Otherwise you take Zambrano going forward.

Regardless, this is the first season where the comparison is worthwhile in the first place -- previously Zambrano had been head-and-shoulders better year in and year out.
Bedard was better last year as well.

[Fairfax Bird]

Regardless, this is the first season where the comparison is worthwhile in the first place -- previously Zambrano had been head-and-shoulders better year in and year out.

Well you really can't go wrong with either of them, however, based on the last year and a half I will take Bedard. Zambrano is great and he will have lots of success, but Bedard has done it in the AL East without the benefit of playing against some very average to below average offenses (Cincy, Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh).

[srh523]

Since OD 2006:

EB: 3.40 ERA, 9.31/2.98/0.86 K/BB/HR/9
Z: 3.60 ERA, 8.22/4.52/0.94 K/BB/HR/9

Not to mention one has seen his ERA decline every season since 2004 and the other has seen his rise every season since 2004.

Anyone who thinks that's a laughable comparison is probably still living in 2005.

Or a Cubs fan! :D

[srh523]

Bedard was better last year as well.

And I have very little doubt will be better in 2008 as well! You also have to agree that the Cubs play in the weakest division in baseball which certainly contributes to Zambrano's numbers.

[DrLev]

Yes. They replace a ligament with a tendon, which is stronger than before.

Fixed that for ya.

[davearm]

Well you really can't go wrong with either of them, however, based on the last year and a half I will take Bedard. Zambrano is great and he will have lots of success, but Bedard has done it in the AL East without the benefit of playing against some very average to below average offenses (Cincy, Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh).
Another victim of the "AL East is better than everyone else" fallacy.

[Sports Guy]

And I have very little doubt will be better in 2008 as well! You also have to agree that the Cubs play in the weakest division in baseball which certainly contributes to Zambrano's numbers.

Zambrano has had a very nice turnaround this year and, as Dave said, if you look at careers up until this year, it isn't all that close.

However, some numbers(like FIP for example) tell you Bedard was better last year and he is certainly better this year. As was pointed out, he plays in the weakest division in baseball and in the weaker of the 2 leagues...In the AL East...How is he?

The problem with Zambrano is long term health IMO.

Very high in PAP over the years.

He is also walking a lot more guys in the last few years....Not a good sign IMO.

He is an interesting guy to watch...I believe he is younger than Bedard, so he should still be very good for at least 3 more years...But that depends on health.

I think Bedard is the better bet going forward but i don't think anyone should be surprised if Zambrano ends up being better over the next 5 years either.

[square634]

Another victim of the "AL East is better than everyone else" fallacy.

I agree that the AL East is overrated, but it is fact that it is easier to pitch in the NL because the pitchers hit.

[Sports Guy]

Another victim of the "AL East is better than everyone else" fallacy.

Certainly better than the NL central and certainly the AL is a better league and a harder league for pitchers.

It would be amazing for anyone to deny that.

[davearm]

I agree that the AL East is overrated, but it is fact that it is easier to pitch in the NL because the pitchers hit.
The Brewers, Reds, and Cubs have all managed to score more runs this year with their pitchers hitting than have the O's, DRays, or BJays with a DH hitting.

The notion that the ALE is just chock full of offensive juggernauts is terribly misguided. There are two juggernauts, and a bunch of mediocrity.

[davearm]

Certainly better than the NL central and certainly the AL is a better league and a harder league for pitchers.

It would be amazing for anyone to deny that.
Let's tell it like it is here.

The ALE has the Sox and Yanks.

The O's, Jays, and DRays would be no better than average teams in any division.

[Sports Guy]

Let's tell it like it is here.

The ALE has the Sox and Yanks.

The O's, Jays, and DRays would be no better than average teams in any division.

The Jays would be the best team in your division IMO.

Hell, the Orioles may be the best team in your division.

And the comparison's between the 2 leagues isn't even close.

[square634]

The Brewers, Reds, and Cubs have all managed to score more runs this year with their pitchers hitting than have the O's, DRays, or BJays with a DH hitting.

The notion that the ALE is just chock full of offensive juggernauts is terribly misguided. There are two juggernauts, and a bunch of mediocrity.

Let's tell it like it is here.

The ALE has the Sox and Yanks.

The O's, Jays, and DRays would be no better than average teams in any division.

But the Cubs pitchers don't have to pitch against their own team, while the O's pitchers don't get to pitch against their own team.

[Sports Guy]

But the Cubs pitchers don't have to pitch against their own team, while the O's pitchers don't get to pitch against their own team.

On top of this...If you want to just look at this year, it is closer than one would think...But look over the last few years and it isn't close.

I think 5 of the 6 teams in the Central were in the bottom third of runs scored last year.

Everyone in the east would be a lot better if they were in the NL and especially, in the NL central.

[66-70-83-??]

Zambrano has had a very nice turnaround this year and, as Dave said, if you look at careers up until this year, it isn't all that close.

However, some numbers(like FIP for example) tell you Bedard was better last year and he is certainly better this year. As was pointed out, he plays in the weakest division in baseball and in the weaker of the 2 leagues...In the AL East...How is he?

The problem with Zambrano is long term health IMO.

Very high in PAP over the years.

He is also walking a lot more guys in the last few years....Not a good sign IMO.

He is an interesting guy to watch...I believe he is younger than Bedard, so he should still be very good for at least 3 more years...But that depends on health.

I think Bedard is the better bet going forward but i don't think anyone should be surprised if Zambrano ends up being better over the next 5 years either.

Huh ?

I like Bedard but I have to side with Dave on this one.

Zambrano has been on the DL once in his career for two weeks back in 2002. That is it.

PAP ? It is a meaningless stat. BP's PAP work is extremely flawed as Bill James and others have pointed out.

Bedard is two years older, has never pitched 200 IP in a season (Zambrano has done it in 4 straight seasons, soon to be 5). Bedard has been on the DL twice (6 months on one stint, 2 months on the other).

Bedard is the one to be concerned with long term health- he hasn't proven yet that he can "go the distance" (full season > 200 IP).

Right now Bedard is having a better season. But, he is in unchartered territory.

Zambrano has been better and more durable over the duration of his career. And he is two years younger.

[Sports Guy]

Huh ?

I like Bedard but I have to side with Dave on this one.

Zambrano has been on the DL once in his career for two weeks back in 2002. That is it.
PAP ? It is a meaningless stat. BP's PAP work is extremely flawed as Bill James and others have pointed out.

Bedard is two years older, has never pitched 200 IP in a season (Zambrano has done it in 4 straight seasons, soon to be 5). Bedard has been on the DL twice (6 months on one stint, 2 months on the other).

Bedard is the one to be concerned with long term health- he hasn't proven yet that he can "go the distance" (full season > 200 IP).

Right now Bedard is having a better season. But, he is in unchartered territory.

Zambrano has been better and more durable over the duration of his career. And he is two years younger.

He has clearly been more durable so far...I don't think that lasts though.

And the bottom line is, whether you like PAP or not, he has thrown a ton of innings and a ton of pitches at an early age...He isn't exactly in the greatest shape either.

We know what the Cubs have done to pitchers and stuff Baker did to Zambrano may not be reversable.

Only time will tell of course.

[Sports Guy]

Look at Zambrano's comps...A lot of these guys were done quickly:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/z/zambrca01.shtml

[66-70-83-??]

Look at Zambrano's comps...A lot of these guys were done quickly:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/z/zambrca01.shtml

But it is a much more impressive list than this one:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bedarer01.shtml

[davearm]

He hgas clearly been more durable so far...I don't think that lasts though.

And the bottom line is, whether you like PAP or not, he has thrown a ton of innings and a ton of pitches at an early age...He isn't exactly in the greatest shape either.

We know what the Cubs have done to pitchers and stuff Baker did to Zambrano may not be reversable.

Only time will tell of course.
LOL. The totally unsupported "because I think so" argument comes out. Very compelling.

You're also dead wrong about Zambrano not being in great shape. He's a phenomenal athlete, and his large frame actually helps him with his durability.

Think Clemens vs. Pedro.

[Sports Guy]

But it is a much more impressive list than this one:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bedarer01.shtml

No doubt...That speaks more to Bedard's career which, up until June 1 of last year, consisted of a lot of promise and some good stretches but not much more than that...He has always been league average or better but that isn't anything special.

But this isn't about his career...You can't really compare the 2.

This is about the next 5 years...All signs point to Bedard being the better pitcher the next 5 years.

[66-70-83-??]

No doubt...That speaks more to Bedard's career which, up until June 1 of last year, consisted of a lot of promise and some good stretches but not much more than that...He has always been league average or better but that isn't anything special.

But this isn't about his career...You can't really compare the 2.

This is about the next 5 years...All signs point to Bedard being the better pitcher the next 5 years.

Not true.

Only one sign does: this years head to head stat comparison.

[davearm]

No doubt...That speaks more to Bedard's career which, up until June 1 of last year, consisted of a lot of promise and some good stretches but not much more than that...He has always been league average or better but that isn't anything special.

But this isn't about his career...You can't really compare the 2.

This is about the next 5 years...All signs point to Bedard being the better pitcher the next 5 years.
Except for all the ones you're ignoring, that is.

[Sports Guy]

Except for all the ones you're ignoring, that is.
Every future predicting stat has Bedard ahead...Not sure how you can deny that.

[Fairfax Bird]

The Brewers, Reds, and Cubs have all managed to score more runs this year with their pitchers hitting than have the O's, DRays, or BJays with a DH hitting.

The notion that the ALE is just chock full of offensive juggernauts is terribly misguided. There are two juggernauts, and a bunch of mediocrity.

So that means the Pirates, Cardinals, and Astros are below our bottom three.

Take the Cubs out, cause how many times has Zambrano pitched against his team.

And add back in two of the top offenses in all of baseball and I would say that the NL Central can't hold a candle to the Al East.

[Fairfax Bird]

The Brewers, Reds, and Cubs have all managed to score more runs this year with their pitchers hitting than have the O's, DRays, or BJays with a DH hitting.

The notion that the ALE is just chock full of offensive juggernauts is terribly misguided. There are two juggernauts, and a bunch of mediocrity.

Total runs scored by team in ALE:

726
636
563
559
554

Total runs scored by teams in the NLC:

582
580
571
554
541
537

Yeah, its like murderer's row in the NLC.:rolleyes:

[davearm]

Every future predicting stat has Bedard ahead...Not sure how you can deny that.
Age - advantage Zambrano
Durability - advantage Zambrano
Past performance - advantage Zambrano
Body Type - advantage Zambrano
PECOTA projection - advantage Zambrano

K/9, FIP and the rest of the peripherals you fixate on get trampled by the real-world factors that you choose to ignore.

[davearm]

So that means the Pirates, Cardinals, and Astros are below our bottom three.

Take the Cubs out, cause how many times has Zambrano pitched against his team.

And add back in two of the top offenses in all of baseball and I would say that the NL Central can't hold a candle to the Al East.
As I said earlier, the AL East is the Yanks, the Sox, and a bunch of mediocrity.

Three NLC teams are better offensively than the ALE mediocracy, despite not using a DH.

Nobody's claiming that the NLC is a murderer's row.

Some folks are claiming that he ALE is a murderer's row, however. The only problem is, it's not. The numbers you provided prove I'm right about this.

[Sports Guy]

Not true.

Only one sign does: this years head to head stat comparison.

Actually, if you compared last year, Bedard would be ahead.

[Sports Guy]

Age - advantage Zambrano
Durability - advantage Zambrano
Past performance - advantage Zambrano
Body Type - advantage Zambrano
PECOTA projection - advantage Zambrano

K/9, FIP and the rest of the peripherals you fixate on get trampled by the real-world factors that you choose to ignore.

You mean the stats that predict the future the best?

Yea, i can see why you would choose to ignore them.:rolleyes:

[Fairfax Bird]

As I said earlier, the AL East is the Yanks, the Sox, and a bunch of mediocrity.

Three NLC teams are better offensively than the ALE mediocracy, despite not using a DH.

Nobody's claiming that the NLC is a murderer's row.

Some folks are claiming that he ALE is a murderer's row, however. The only problem is, it's not. The numbers you provided prove I'm right about this.

What the numbers prove is that the NLC is full of average to below average offensive teams wil the ALE is top heavy with 2 powerhouse offenses and 3 average offenses. Thus ... Zambrano has a much easier time of it because he doesn't have to make 6-8 starts each year against the #1 and #4 offenses in the entire league.

But look out for that Brewers offense they are 30 runs better than the worst offense in the ALE.:rolleyes:

[davearm]

You mean the stats that predict the future the best?

Yea, i can see why you would choose to ignore them.:rolleyes:
Who's ignoring peripherals? Certainly not me. I'm taking them as one piece of evidence to be considered along with several others.

Not everything that counts can be counted. That's a lesson that you've apparently not yet learned.

And even some important things that can be counted, you still want to ignore. You're usually the biggest advocate of age being a huge determinant of a player's future value. Yet here you're ignoring it, since it's not in your favor. Your selective reasoning is not fooling anyone.

[davearm]

What the numbers prove is that the NLC is full of average to below average offensive teams wil the ALE is top heavy with 2 powerhouse offenses and 3 average offenses. Thus ... Zambrano has a much easier time of it because he doesn't have to make 6-8 starts each year against the #1 and #4 offenses in the entire league.

But look out for that Brewers offense they are 30 runs better than the worst offense in the ALE.:rolleyes:
The Brewers lead the majors in HR, BTW.

Just keep talking and making yourself look stupid. It's very amusing.

[Sports Guy]

Make no mistake, there are plenty of warning signs regarding Zambrano:

2007 K-Rate down 1.38 from 2006.
06 and 07 BB-Rates: 4.84 and 4.13
Command (K:BB) since 04: 2.32 / 2.35 / 1.83 / 1.81
HR-Rate since 03: 0.38 / 0.60 / 0.85 / 0.84 / 1.07
FIP ERA since 03: 3.63 / 3.72 / 3.88 / 4.19 / 4.65
GB/FB Rate since 05: 1.69 / 1.31 / 1.11 (His GB% has dropped every year since 2003).
ERA since 04: 2.75 / 3.26 / 3.41 / 3.86

I wouldn't bet money on who will be the better pitcher over the next five years, but at least Bedard's numbers are trending in the right direction.

Well said. Was just about to show the same thing but you saved the time for me. :D

Dave, i have already acknowledged the age difference and said that that obviously favors Zambrano but i am more worried about the health of Zambrano, even at his young age, so that is why i am not looking at age as much.

As i said, Zambrano could certainly be the better pitcher and if you look at their careers, Big Z has been the better pitcher...Of course, this is also why the PECOTA comps favor Zambrano.

However, if they re-did those comps for this year and last year for the 2, i bet Bedard's would be better.

[Sports Guy]

The Brewers lead the majors in HR, BTW.

Just keep talking and making yourself look stupid. It's very amusing.

Is that the only offense you look at?

Do homers determine how good an offense is?

The 2 divisions aren't close and neither are the 2 leagues.

[weemnj]

The Brewers lead the majors in HR, BTW.

Just keep talking and making yourself look stupid. It's very amusing.

On a separate note---boy that Lilly turned into a helluva pitcher.:)

[byrdz]

In todays game they have already talked about how the fans in Toronto want Bedard. It's really starting to get annoying that they didn't want anything to do with him but now that he's pitching well he's a Canadian and should come home to play with his favorite team.:rolleyes:

Just trade him to an NL team and be done with it.

[Sports Guy]

BTW, just to expand on 1970's post...For last year and this year:

DIPS:

CZ: 4.12/4.58
EB: 3.64/3.16

FIP:

CZ: 4.15/4.67
EB: 3.71/ 3.37

xFIP:

CZ: 4.43/ 4.66
EB: 4.05/3.07

K rate:

CZ: 8.83/7.45
EB: 7.84/11.02

BB rate:

CZ: 4.84/4.13
EB: 3.16/ 2.76

Command rate:

CZ: 1.89/1.85
EB: 2.48/3.98

HR rate:

CZ: .84/1.07
EB: .73/1.01

ERA:

CZ: 3.41/3.86
EB: 3.76/2.98

ERA+:

CZ: 136/117
EB: 120/148

GB/FB ratio:

CZ: 1.24/1.16
EB: 1.70/1.43

So, here are all the numbers....The future predictors and Dave's favorite 2 stats(btw, this doesn't show what 1970 showed and that would be the increase and decline stuff between the 2).

So, in the last 2 years, Zambrano had a better ERA and ERA+ last year(basically meaningless difference when you compare league and division) and big Z had a higher K rate last year.

That's it...Bedard has clearly been the better pitcher the last 2 years and he is doing it in the AL, the better league.

Its not close.

And, those numbers predict the future better than anything else.

Up until 2006, Big Z was the better pitcher by far....From 2006 through right now, Bedard is the better pitcher by far.

Going into the future, as of right now, Bedard's trending in the right direction and Zambrano isn't.

[Sports Guy]

In todays game they have already talked about how the fans in Toronto want Bedard. It's really starting to get annoying that they didn't want anything to do with him but now that he's pitching well he's a Canadian and should come home to play with his favorite team.:rolleyes:

Just trade him to an NL team and be done with it.

The idea that home team fans want their hometown guy to play in their stadium is no big deal.

We hear that about Tex all the time..Does that guarantee he will be here?

[byrdz]

The idea that home team fans want their hometown guy to play in their stadium is no big deal.

We hear that about Tex all the time..Does that guarantee he will be here?

Yeah, I know, it's just a little annoying. I guess I'm just not used to other teams wanting our players.

[Fairfax Bird]

The Brewers lead the majors in HR, BTW.

Just keep talking and making yourself look stupid. It's very amusing.


Yeah I am looking pretty stupid in this argument. Lets put it this way. Take the Orioles and Cubs out of the equation.

The ALE average for runs scored by team is 618.75

The NLC average for runs scored by team is 558.8

That is just how stupid I am ... I think the ALE is a much better offensive division than the NLC. Please excuse my stupidity.:rolleyes:

[Sports Guy]

Yeah I am looking pretty stupid in this argument. Lets put it this way. Take the Orioles and Cubs out of the equation.

The ALE average for runs scored by team is 618.75

The NLC average for runs scored by team is 558.8

That is just how stupid I am ... I think the ALE is a much better offensive division than the NLC. Please excuse my stupidity.:rolleyes:

Look at previous years...Really see how stupid you are. :D :rolleyes:

[Lucky Jim]

Age - advantage Zambrano
Durability - advantage Zambrano
Past performance - advantage Zambrano
Body Type - advantage Zambrano
PECOTA projection - advantage Zambrano

K/9, FIP and the rest of the peripherals you fixate on get trampled by the real-world factors that you choose to ignore.

1. Durability? I think Zambrano's pitch count history makes this a bet worth hedging. He hasn't broken down yet, of course. But he's a time-bomb as far as I'm concerned.

2. Past Performance: before this year, yes. After this year, not nearly so much.

3. Body Type? Fat is better?

4. PECOTA: we'll check back with PECOTA after this year.

The fact is, there's no way in #$%* I'd have signed Zambrano for five years UNLESS I'm the Cubs. He's a very good pitcher. But as the posts above point out, there are some bad trends at work there.

[Fairfax Bird]

Look at previous years...Really see how stupid you are. :D :rolleyes:

You know I am feeling really stupid so lets look at where each offense ranks in MLB.

Yankees 1
Red Sox 4
Orioles 16
Blue Jays 18
Devil Rays 19

Brewers 13 (WOW - but they hit home runs!)
Reds 14
Cubs 15
Astros 20
Pirates 24
Cardinals 26

Wow - you know Dave you are right. My entire argument that the ALE is much better offensively than the NLC is so stupid it is amusing.

[PoorMike]

In todays game they have already talked about how the fans in Toronto want Bedard. It's really starting to get annoying that they didn't want anything to do with him but now that he's pitching well he's a Canadian and should come home to play with his favorite team.:rolleyes:

Just trade him to an NL team and be done with it.

I was looking at their contract situation on

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubhouse_Contracts.aspx?sport=MLB&majteam=TOR

Glaus will come off in time to get Bedard, but they'll still have AJB, BJR, RH, VW and would have to pony up for Rios in 2011. I doubt they can keep all those guys and get EB. If they start unloading people we may get an early indication of their plans.

[Eight]

Age - advantage Zambrano
Durability - advantage Zambrano
Past performance - advantage Zambrano
Body Type - advantage Zambrano
PECOTA projection - advantage Zambrano

K/9, FIP and the rest of the peripherals you fixate on get trampled by the real-world factors that you choose to ignore.

How is PECOTA something we should care about, but the number of strikeouts, walks, and homeruns aren't real-world factors? How is FIP/DIPS some weird made-up concept whereas PECOTA is the gold standard? PECOTA isn't great at all in predicting pitcher performance, certainly no more than marginally better than the best theoretical ERAs.

Past performance from 2005 and earlier - advantage Zambrano
Past performance from the more relevant 2006/2007 period - advantage Bedard

Trends are important - one has shown improvement every year since 2004, the other has declined every year since 2004.

Durability in retrospect favors Zambrano, but does that mean he has a lower liklihood of injury going forward? Hard to believe considering how hard he's been worked at a young age.

[Sports Guy]

Can't wait to see Dave come back to this thread...He is getting killed. :D

[WEAVERMAN]

Thanks for the insane Chicago Cubs, Erik will demand what, 100 million dollars?

[PoorMike]

Thanks for the insane Chicago Cubs, Erik will demand what, 100 million dollars?

CZ is a 26 yr old FA.

EB is a 28 year old with 2 yrs of arb left.

[davearm]

Is that the only offense you look at?

Do homers determine how good an offense is?

The 2 divisions aren't close and neither are the 2 leagues.
Of course HRs aren't the only statistic I look at. Don't be a fool.

I am curious which category the team that leads the majors in HRs falls into: are they below average, or is that good enough for average?

The obvious answer is that the Brewers' offense is above average. So is the Reds' and Cubs', for that matter. So I'm going to nail Fairfax to the wall for saying every offense in the NLC is average or below average. That's utter nonsense and something only some blind and snobbish ALE lackey would say.

Lots of good baseball being played outside of NY and BOS. Shame all of you with your noses in the air are missing it.

[Sports Guy]

Of course HRs aren't the only statistic I look at. Don't be a fool.

I am curious which category the team that leads the majors in HRs falls into: are they below average, or is that good enough for average?

The obvious answer is that the Brewers' offense is above average. So is the Reds' and Cubs', for that matter. So I'm going to nail Fairfax to the wall for saying every offense in the NLC is average or below average. That's utter nonsense and something only some blind and snobbish ALE lackey would say.

Lots of good baseball being played outside of NY and BOS. Shame all of you with your noses in the air are missing it.

I agree that the Brewers and Reds are an above average offense THIS YEAR...Of course, playing in their home parks helps a lot.

The Cubs are pretty much average. Of course, the Orioles have a higher team OPS and OBP and are only 8 runs behind the Cubs.

[davearm]

Well said. Was just about to show the same thing but you saved the time for me. :D

Dave, i have already acknowledged the age difference and said that that obviously favors Zambrano but i am more worried about the health of Zambrano, even at his young age, so that is why i am not looking at age as much.

As i said, Zambrano could certainly be the better pitcher and if you look at their careers, Big Z has been the better pitcher...Of course, this is also why the PECOTA comps favor Zambrano.

However, if they re-did those comps for this year and last year for the 2, i bet Bedard's would be better.
No you didn't acknowledge the age difference.

What you said was, "all signs point to Bedard being the better pitcher the next 5 years."

So therefore you're ignoring age (and a bunch of other factors that you've been presented with), and focusing exclusively on peripherals.

So yes or no, are peripherals the only thing you look at when evaluating these players? The answer has to be yes, since there's nothing else out there that favors Bedard. I'll give you the list of factors in Zambrano's favor if you need to see it again.

[davearm]

I agree that the Brewers and Reds are an above average offense THIS YEAR...Of course, playing in their home parks helps a lot.

The Cubs are pretty much average. Of course, the Orioles have a higher team OPS and OBP and are only 8 runs behind the Cubs.
Fairfax doesn't seem to agree.

He's taken the rather delusional position that every team in the NLC is either average or below average.

[davearm]

Yeah I am looking pretty stupid in this argument. Lets put it this way. Take the Orioles and Cubs out of the equation.

The ALE average for runs scored by team is 618.75

The NLC average for runs scored by team is 558.8

That is just how stupid I am ... I think the ALE is a much better offensive division than the NLC. Please excuse my stupidity.:rolleyes:
I've said more than once that the ALE is extremely top-heavy with BOS and NYY.

So take out the top two teams from each division, and show me the average runs scored by team, for teams 3, 4, and 5.

It's basically even, and that's with the ALE having the DH.

So explain how the ALE "is a much better offensive division than the NLC" when, after the two heavyweights, the rest of the division can barely keep pace with the teams in the bottom half of the allegedly miserable NLC, in which the pitchers hit.

The fact is that the top two favor ALE, but the next 3 is essentially a draw, even with the ALE having the advantage of the DH. You'd think that there would be some separation there if what you're claiming was actually true.

[Sports Guy]

I've said more than once that the ALE is extremely top-heavy with BOS and NYY.

So take out the top two teams from each division, and show me the average runs scored by team, for teams 3, 4, and 5.

It's basically even, and that's with the ALE having the DH.

So explain how the ALE "is a much better offensive division than the NLC" when, after the two heavyweights, the rest of the division can barely keep pace with the teams in the bottom half of the allegedly miserable NLC, in which the pitchers hit.

The fact is that the top two favor ALE, but the next 3 is essentially a draw, even with the ALE having the advantage of the DH. You'd think that there would be some separation there if what you're claiming was actually true.

Dave, is there a reason why you are only looking at this year?

BTW, while you say to take away the DH, add .50 run ERA to each staff when they come here...May end up equaling out in the RA/RS department.

[RZNJ]

I'm late to this thread. Is anyone questioning the fact that the AL is a much tougher league to pitch in than the NL? Forget where offenses are ranked for each team and division and so one. It's clear to most people that pitchers who change leagues, USUALLY fare better switching to the NL than the AL.

[davearm]

1. Durability? I think Zambrano's pitch count history makes this a bet worth hedging. He hasn't broken down yet, of course. But he's a time-bomb as far as I'm concerned.

2. Past Performance: before this year, yes. After this year, not nearly so much.

3. Body Type? Fat is better?

4. PECOTA: we'll check back with PECOTA after this year.

The fact is, there's no way in #$%* I'd have signed Zambrano for five years UNLESS I'm the Cubs. He's a very good pitcher. But as the posts above point out, there are some bad trends at work there.
1. Unless you happen to be in possession of a crystal ball, you're being extremely disingenuous if you don't give this one to Zambrano. 4 straight seasons of 200+ IP. Bedard is still on zero.

2. Career stats are going to favor Zambrano by a large margin even after this season. The only way to skew things in Bedard's favor is to cherry-pick the timeframe to cut out Bedard's multiple long stretches of averageness.

3. Big and strong is definitely preferrable to tall and skinny for a power pitcher's durability and longevity.

4. What we've got now favors Z by a wide margin.

[Eight]

No you didn't acknowledge the age difference.

What you said was, "all signs point to Bedard being the better pitcher the next 5 years."

So therefore you're ignoring age (and a bunch of other factors that you've been presented with), and focusing exclusively on peripherals.

So yes or no, are peripherals the only thing you look at when evaluating these players? The answer has to be yes, since there's nothing else out there that favors Bedard. I'll give you the list of factors in Zambrano's favor if you need to see it again.

Huh? Just because you ignore the other factors doesn't mean they don't actually exist.

Once again, since OD 2006, Bedard has had a better ERA by 0.2 runs, even pitching in the more difficult league and division. This season Bedard has an ERA about 0.9 runs better. These are not peripheral statistics.

Bedard has had a better FIP for three straight seasons.

Bedard has seen his ERA decline every season since 2004. In that same time span, Zambrano's ERA has gone up every single season.

Zambrano, while likely very durable, has been worked as hard as any pitcher in the majors at a very young age, averaging at least 110 pitches per start in three of the past for years. This may increase the liklihood of injury beyong that of Bedard despite the two year age difference.

Do you disagree that these factors which favor Bedard exist?

[Fairfax Bird]

I've said more than once that the ALE is extremely top-heavy with BOS and NYY.

So take out the top two teams from each division, and show me the average runs scored by team, for teams 3, 4, and 5.

It's basically even, and that's with the ALE having the DH.

So explain how the ALE "is a much better offensive division than the NLC" when, after the two heavyweights, the rest of the division can barely keep pace with the teams in the bottom half of the allegedly miserable NLC, in which the pitchers hit.

The fact is that the top two favor ALE, but the next 3 is essentially a draw, even with the ALE having the advantage of the DH. You'd think that there would be some separation there if what you're claiming was actually true.

When the hell did they take the Red Sox and Yankees out of the ALE? We play them 38 times. Of course they factor in the equation. Your just stupid if you think they don't factor into our equation.

BTW the Cardinals and Pirates are far WORSE offenses then any team in our division.

How do you like being called stupid. Nice, huh.
:rolleyes:

[davearm]

Dave, is there a reason why you are only looking at this year?

BTW, while you say to take away the DH, add .50 run ERA to each staff when they come here...May end up equaling out in the RA/RS department.
We can go back if you'd like.

2006 was a terrible year for the NLC, but before that, the results were as good or better as they are for 2007. The Cards have had several fantastic offensive teams recently, for example. So the end result would be to take out the Brewers and/or Reds, and replace them with the Cards and/or Astros.

The point remains the same -- the NLC typically has 2-3 above average to great offensive clubs. 2006 didn't conform, but keep looking and you'll see this to be true as a general rule.

Just as, as a general rule, the Sox and Yanks are above average to great, and maybe one other ALE team comes in above average, but 2 are no better than average almost every year.

[RZNJ]

When the hell did they take the Red Sox and Yankees out of the ALE? We play them 38 times. Of course they factor in the equation. Your just stupid if you think they don't factor into our equation.

BTW the Cardinals and Pirates are far WORSE offenses then any team in our division.

How do you like being called stupid. Nice, huh.
:rolleyes:

Be careful. He can dish it out but he can't take it. :)

[davearm]

When the hell did they take the Red Sox and Yankees out of the ALE? We play them 38 times. Of course they factor in the equation. Your just stupid if you think they don't factor into our equation.

BTW the Cardinals and Pirates are far WORSE offenses then any team in our division.

How do you like being called stupid. Nice, huh.
:rolleyes:
Look if you want to concede that the ALE is two juggernauts and three mediocre teams, then we can be done here, because I already said that awhile ago.

If you want to disagree, and paint the ALE as some sort of murderer's row, then present some evidence to suggest the bottom half of the ALE is any better/different than the bottom half of the NLC. I've already shown that it is not.

[davearm]

Huh? Just because you ignore the other factors doesn't mean they don't actually exist.

Once again, since OD 2006, Bedard has had a better ERA by 0.2 runs, even pitching in the more difficult league and division. This season Bedard has an ERA about 0.9 runs better. These are not peripheral statistics.

Bedard has had a better FIP for three straight seasons.

Bedard has seen his ERA decline every season since 2004. In that same time span, Zambrano's ERA has gone up every single season.

Zambrano, while likely very durable, has been worked as hard as any pitcher in the majors at a very young age, averaging at least 110 pitches per start in three of the past for years. This may increase the liklihood of injury beyong that of Bedard despite the two year age difference.

Do you disagree that these factors which favor Bedard exist?
I'm not ignoring anything partner.

In fact in one of my very first posts, I acknowledged that this year, Bedard has managed to be as consistently dominant as Zambrano had been from 2003-2006, and for whatever reason, Zambrano caught the case of inconsistency that Bedard was afflicted with prior to 2007 -- often dominating, but sometimes inexplicably average or worse. That was Bedard before this year.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not ignoring anything partner.

In fact in one of my very first posts, I acknowledged that this year, Bedard has managed to be as consistently dominant as Zambrano had been from 2003-2006, and for whatever reason, Zambrano caught the case of inconsistency that Bedard was afflicted with prior to 2007 -- often dominating, but sometimes inexplicably average or worse. That was Bedard before this year.

Well, you have been shown the numbers that tell you that Zambrano wasn't better than Bedard last year.

You can ignore them or you can cherry pick your 2 favorite meaningless stats(ERA and ERA+) but you would still be wrong.

No one is denying that Zambrano was the better pitcher up until 2005.

[davearm]

Well, you have been shown the numbers that tell you that Zambrano wasn't better than Bedard last year.

You can ignore them or you can cherry pick your 2 favorite meaningless stats(ERA and ERA+) but you would still be wrong.

No one is denying that Zambrano was the better pitcher up until 2005.
Zambrano was better at preventing runs in 2006.

Now if you feel better knowing that Bedard had more strikeouts to go along with his extra earned runs, then that's great for you.

[Sports Guy]

Zambrano was better at preventing runs in 2006.

Now if you feel better knowing that Bedard had more strikeouts to go along with his extra earned runs, then that's great for you.

Actually, Z had a better K rate than Bedard last year...His walks were the bad thing.

All of the projectable stats said Bedard would be better this year and guess what, he is.

And you aren't accounting for the difference between leagues.

Funny how you do that when talking about offenses between the East and Central but not in this discussion.

Add .50 run to Z's ERA and all of a sudden his ERA and ERA+ are worse than Bedard...Drop Bedard's .50 run and his is better.

Of course, i can see why you wouldn't acknowledge this because it really doesn't support your poor argument.

Again, 2006 and 2007, EB much better.

Before that...Z much better.

[Eight]

I'm not ignoring anything partner.

In fact in one of my very first posts, I acknowledged that this year, Bedard has managed to be as consistently dominant as Zambrano had been from 2003-2006, and for whatever reason, Zambrano caught the case of inconsistency that Bedard was afflicted with prior to 2007 -- often dominating, but sometimes inexplicably average or worse. That was Bedard before this year.

Partner, when you say that peripherals are the only thing that put Bedard ahead, you've ignored a lot of things.

Care to explain why you think PECOTA is a good tool but theoretical ERAs are some type of alchemy?


Look if you want to concede that the ALE is two juggernauts and three mediocre teams, then we can be done here, because I already said that awhile ago.

If you want to disagree, and paint the ALE as some sort of murderer's row, then present some evidence to suggest the bottom half of the ALE is any better/different than the bottom half of the NLC. I've already shown that it is not.

This is so silly.

Toronto averages 4.58 R/G and Tampa Bay 4.54. The third and fourth best teams in the NLC average 4.50 and 4.48.

Toronto averaged 4.99 R/G last season. The top 4 in the NLC averaged 4.85, 4.62, 4.54, and 4.51.

Toronto averaged 4.78 R/G in 2005. Tampa Bay averaged 4.63. The top two teams in the NLC averaged 4.48 and 4.34.

Toronto would have led the NLC in scoring in two of the past three seasons. The only season in which either team would finish outside the top half of the division is '06 TB. In what way is the ALE not a division with much more offense being generated?

[Lucky Jim]

1. Unless you happen to be in possession of a crystal ball, you're being extremely disingenuous if you don't give this one to Zambrano. 4 straight seasons of 200+ IP. Bedard is still on zero.

2. Career stats are going to favor Zambrano by a large margin even after this season. The only way to skew things in Bedard's favor is to cherry-pick the timeframe to cut out Bedard's multiple long stretches of averageness.

3. Big and strong is definitely preferrable to tall and skinny for a power pitcher's durability and longevity.

4. What we've got now favors Z by a wide margin.

Dave, every one of your points illustrates that Zambrano's had the better career. No one here disputes that. But we're trying to figure out what the future holds. Unless you think a contract is a mere reward for past performance and not an estimate of future value, then you're just way off base:

1. Yes, Bedard has maxed out at 196.3 innings. But if anything, going forward this is probably a point in Bedard's favor. If I own a car and rag it out through terrible driving and maintenance and you own a car that has been run moderately but had one major repair and several minor repairs, the value of my car - based on durability - isn't higher. It's just not. Now, Bedard has had some instances where he's been shelved, it's true. But for durability's sake, the risk of catastrophic injury is far higher for Zambrano at this point. Here are CZ's comps as per BP:


1 Stan Williams 1962 40 11 Dwight Gooden 1990 26
2 Mark Gubicza 1988 38 12 Joe Coleman 1973 26
3 Kerry Wood 2003 38 13 Jim Maloney 1966 25
4 Dean Chance 1967 35 14 Sam McDowell 1968 25
5 John Smoltz 1993 34 15 Don Cardwell 1962 25
6 Jose Rijo 1991 32 16 Don Drysdale 1962 24
7 Rich Gossage 1977 31 17 Freddy Garcia 2002 23
8 C.C. Sabathia 2006 30 18 Wayne Twitchell 1974 22
9 A.J. Burnett 2003 29 19 Wilson Alvarez 1996 22
10 Len Barker 1981 27 20 Ralph Branca 1952 21

Do these names make you feel safe and secure? They wouldn't me.

2. Career stats WILL favor Zambrano. Just as career stats will favor many players in decline stages over rising/less experienced players. Here's what BP had to say about CZ, though:


Zambrano has seemingly been the model of consistency for the Cubs, delivering high-value innings for 30-plus starts a year, pumping in fastball after fastball. Unfortunately, there were a couple of worrisome notes in 2006--his walk rate jumped up to an unhealthy level, and his groundball-flyball ratio took a sharp downward turn. It`s might be nothing, but it could be the first warning sign that his years of hard pitching at tender ages are catching up to him.

This sums up my points in #1 & #2: that there are signs of wear and tear that are unmistakable. And that the trends are not good. Overlook this if you want, but you lampoon us for failing to be objective all of the time and you're more blinkered in this instance than any of us.

3. Big and strong? You mean, fat with a questionable work ethic and commitment to fitness? Bedard isn't "tall and skinny". He's 6'1, 190. Yes, you're right - Zambrano's far better off than Bedard. Name as many successful pitchers who were fat and showed both success and longevity in their career as you can. Please.

4. Yes, it does. But you're failing to take note of the trend-factor. Bedard's PECOTA likely suffers (now) from the fact that Bedard had only one full, good year before this year. Statistical analysis is as likely to show this as an outlier - but a second year even better should revise that PECOTA considerably. Do you not think that the trends that are moving in opposite directions are going to be important in PECOTA analysis after this year? Of course they are.

Every predictive stat shows that Zambrano is waning while Bedard is waxing. It's indisputable.

Bedard's comps, by the way:

1 Gary Peters 1965 71 11 Bob Ojeda 1986 41
2 Bob Kuzava 1951 66 12 Ted Gray 1953 41
3 Mark Langston 1988 48 13 Chris Short 1966 40
4 Bob Gibson 1964 45 14 Andy Messersmith 1973 40
5 Juan Guzman 1995 45 15 Rudy May 1972 40
6 Mel Parnell 1950 44 16 Warren Spahn 1949 39
7 Mike Flanagan 1980 44 17 Vinegar Bend Mizell 1958 39
8 Bob Lemon 1949 43 18 Chuck Finley 1991 38
9 Whitey Ford 1957 42 19 Norm Charlton 1991 38
10 Cliff Chambers 1950 41 20 Johnny Podres 1961 37

[RZNJ]

Lucky Jim. Your post was well reasoned, well researched, and well presented. Triple Crown Post. Nice!

[RShack]

Bedard's comps, by the way:

1 Gary Peters 1965 71 11 Bob Ojeda 1986 41
2 Bob Kuzava 1951 66 12 Ted Gray 1953 41
3 Mark Langston 1988 48 13 Chris Short 1966 40
4 Bob Gibson 1964 45 14 Andy Messersmith 1973 40
5 Juan Guzman 1995 45 15 Rudy May 1972 40
6 Mel Parnell 1950 44 16 Warren Spahn 1949 39
7 Mike Flanagan 1980 44 17 Vinegar Bend Mizell 1958 39
8 Bob Lemon 1949 43 18 Chuck Finley 1991 38
9 Whitey Ford 1957 42 19 Norm Charlton 1991 38
10 Cliff Chambers 1950 41 20 Johnny Podres 1961 37
I'm not informed enough to appreciate the strengths-and-weaknesses of how these comps work. But any predictive list that puts Bedard in with Bob Gibson, Whitey Ford, Warren Spahn (and, yes, Mike Flanagan) is one I am predisposed to like ;-)

Is there a short-ish answer to the question, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of calculating comps such as this?"

[Lucky Jim]

I'm not informed enough to appreciate the strengths-and-weaknesses of how these comps work. But any predictive list that puts Bedard in with Bob Gibson, Whitey Ford, Warren Spahn (and, yes, Mike Flanagan) is one I am predisposed to like ;-)

Is there a short-ish answer to the question, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of calculating comps such as this?"


Comparable Players
[ Return To Top ]

Comparable Players are the backbone of a player's PECOTA. Only the twenty best comparables are listed here, but as many as 100 players may be used in the generation of his forecast if they are sufficiently comparable.

PECOTA compares each player against a database of roughly 20,000 major league batter seasons since World War II. In addition, it also draws upon a database of roughly 15,000 translated minor league seasons (1997-2006) for players that spent most of their previous season in the minor leagues. (When minor league comparables are used, they appear in ALL CAPS). PECOTA considers four broad categories of attributes in determining a hitter's comparability:

1. Production metrics--such as batting average, isolated power, and unintentional walk rate for hitters, or strikeout rate and groundball rate for pitchers.

2. Usage metrics, including career length and plate appearances or innings pitched.

3. Phenotypic attributes, including handedness, height, weight, career length (for major leaguers), and minor league level (for prospects).

4. Fielding Position (for hitters) or starting/relief role (for pitchers). PECOTA doesn't require that a comparable hitter play the same defensive position; it is a factor that is evaluated along with many others, and assigned a relatively substantial weight. Consideration is also given to the 'similarity' between two positions; for example, a shortstop will be compared to a second baseman before he is compared to a left fielder. In most cases, the database is large enough to provide a meaningfully large set of appropriate comparables. When it isn't, the program is designed to 'cheat' by expanding its tolerance for dissimilar players until a reasonable sample size is reached.

An explanation. Frankly, I don't think that PECOTA or Comps are likely to be all that great when predicting pitchers' performance. BUT...

...they sure do look pretty when I put them in the middle of posts. I've got to think Bedard's PECOTA will look a lot better after this year - it'll likely align him more closely with the better pitchers, rather than those on the list whose success was more fleeting.

I'd love Drungo, 1970, Baltimoron, Eight, NoVaO or one of those other math geeks ( ;) ) to step in and answer your question. I'm not statistician - I can see what the stat is measuring and understand how it works in terms of its purpose, but my brain hurts if it tries to hold too many numbers at one time.

[Fairfax Bird]

Look if you want to concede that the ALE is two juggernauts and three mediocre teams, then we can be done here, because I already said that awhile ago.

If you want to disagree, and paint the ALE as some sort of murderer's row, then present some evidence to suggest the bottom half of the ALE is any better/different than the bottom half of the NLC. I've already shown that it is not.


How about this, the ALE is two juggernauts and three AVERAGE offenses. The NLC is four average offenses and two below average offenses.

Therefore Bedard would handle the NLC with ease ... whereas Zambrano having to face our two juggernauts 6-8 times a year would significantly impact his effectiveness.

Now I know why you and SG fight so much, neither will concede a thing, even when wrong.

[Brady9Fan]

Well, signing Erik will look good for the O's since they did sign Wieters. If management wants to sell tickets & keep fans around, they will need to hold onto their good players. The starting pitching is really what is going well for the team...we need to keep that. I think if we can show Bedard that we do appreciate him & want him to stay, maybe that will give him a change of heart to stay.

Well, I hope at least. Bedard & Guthrie are a pair we need to keep.

[cindyluvsbrady]

Well, signing Erik will look good for the O's since they did sign Wieters. If management wants to sell tickets & keep fans around, they will need to hold onto their good players. The starting pitching is really what is going well for the team...we need to keep that. I think if we can show Bedard that we do appreciate him & want him to stay, maybe that will give him a change of heart to stay.

Well, I hope at least. Bedard & Guthrie are a pair we need to keep.

I agree 100%
Give Erik a blank check....and tell him we love him:)

[davearm]

Partner, when you say that peripherals are the only thing that put Bedard ahead, you've ignored a lot of things.

Care to explain why you think PECOTA is a good tool but theoretical ERAs are some type of alchemy?



This is so silly.

Toronto averages 4.58 R/G and Tampa Bay 4.54. The third and fourth best teams in the NLC average 4.50 and 4.48.

Toronto averaged 4.99 R/G last season. The top 4 in the NLC averaged 4.85, 4.62, 4.54, and 4.51.

Toronto averaged 4.78 R/G in 2005. Tampa Bay averaged 4.63. The top two teams in the NLC averaged 4.48 and 4.34.

Toronto would have led the NLC in scoring in two of the past three seasons. The only season in which either team would finish outside the top half of the division is '06 TB. In what way is the ALE not a division with much more offense being generated?
Let me make this very simple for everyone.

From 2003 to now:
* The Sox and Yanks have combined to average 5.57 RPG.
* The other three ALE teams have combined to average 4.68 RPG.
* The six NLC teams have combined to average 4.61 RPG.

CONCLUSION: After the top two teams, the rest of the ALE plays about like the NLC.

[davearm]

How about this, the ALE is two juggernauts and three AVERAGE offenses. The NLC is four average offenses and two below average offenses.

Therefore Bedard would handle the NLC with ease ... whereas Zambrano having to face our two juggernauts 6-8 times a year would significantly impact his effectiveness.

Now I know why you and SG fight so much, neither will concede a thing, even when wrong.
The bolded is where your argument crumbles to pieces.

If you think the NLC does not have even one offense that is any better than average, either this year or in the recent past, then you are the one who is wrong. In any given year, usually 2 to 3 teams fit that description.

[Fairfax Bird]

If you think the NLC does not have any offenses that are any better than average, either this year or in the recent past, then you are the one who is wrong.


They are ranked 13, 14, 15, 20 in runs scored and they are all in good hitters parks ... that seems pretty average to me.

[Eight]

Let me make this very simple for everyone.

From 2003 to now:
* The Sox and Yanks have combined to average 5.57 RPG.
* The other three ALE teams have combined to average 4.68 RPG.
* The six NLC teams have combined to average 4.61 RPG.

CONCLUSION: After the top two teams, the rest of the ALE plays about like the NLC.

Thanks for making that so simple for everyone. Even if you cherry pick the top two teams out of the equations, we still come to the conclusion that the ALE > NLC as an offensive division.

And if you add those two other teams in - who would probably rank 1-2 in offense over the past five seasons - you can easily see where one would conclude that the ALE is a juggernaut of a division offensively.

[mweb]

I think a 4/50 offer is a solid one, about 16-18M for the remaining 2 arb years, and about 32-34M for his 2 free agent years. I'd add a team option for 17.5 with a 2.5M buyout.

Concerning this debate, I'll take Bedard over the next 5 years over Zambrano, although I do think it's close.

As far as what division is tougher to pitch in, it's obviously the AL East by a wide margin if you don't pitch for the Yanks or Sox. So pitching for the O's is much more difficult than for the Cubs. Not just due to the difference of divisions, but the difference in leagues since the AL is clearly superior in talent, plus there's the difference between the DH and pitcher.

[davearm]

Dave, every one of your points illustrates that Zambrano's had the better career. No one here disputes that. But we're trying to figure out what the future holds. Unless you think a contract is a mere reward for past performance and not an estimate of future value, then you're just way off base:
Do you believe that in baseball, past performance is not an indicator of future results? I surely wouldn't agree with that. Therefore past performance is not only a valid consideration, but also one that favors Z.


1. Yes, Bedard has maxed out at 196.3 innings. But if anything, going forward this is probably a point in Bedard's favor. If I own a car and rag it out through terrible driving and maintenance and you own a car that has been run moderately but had one major repair and several minor repairs, the value of my car - based on durability - isn't higher. It's just not. Now, Bedard has had some instances where he's been shelved, it's true. But for durability's sake, the risk of catastrophic injury is far higher for Zambrano at this point. Here are CZ's comps as per BP:
I understand the abuse theory just fine, but nevertheless I think it's completely unreasonable to believe that a guy with zero 200 IP seasons at age 28 is going to be more durable than a guy that's done 200 every year in the league.


2. Career stats WILL favor Zambrano. Just as career stats will favor many players in decline stages over rising/less experienced players. Here's what BP had to say about CZ, though:

This sums up my points in #1 & #2: that there are signs of wear and tear that are unmistakable. And that the trends are not good. Overlook this if you want, but you lampoon us for failing to be objective all of the time and you're more blinkered in this instance than any of us.
I don't buy the theory that Zambrano is in a "decline stage". Not after seeing him pitch over the last ~3 months to an ERA around 2.5 and being mostly unhittable.


3. Big and strong? You mean, fat with a questionable work ethic and commitment to fitness? Bedard isn't "tall and skinny". He's 6'1, 190. Yes, you're right - Zambrano's far better off than Bedard. Name as many successful pitchers who were fat and showed both success and longevity in their career as you can. Please.
You show here just how little you know about Zambrano, using phrases like fat, and questionable work ethic/commitment to fitness. Those things couldn't be further from the truth. The guy's an absolute beast of an athlete, and an extremely hard worker.

And yes, big and strong aids a power pitcher's durability.


4. Yes, it does. But you're failing to take note of the trend-factor. Bedard's PECOTA likely suffers (now) from the fact that Bedard had only one full, good year before this year. Statistical analysis is as likely to show this as an outlier - but a second year even better should revise that PECOTA considerably. Do you not think that the trends that are moving in opposite directions are going to be important in PECOTA analysis after this year? Of course they are.

Every predictive stat shows that Zambrano is waning while Bedard is waxing. It's indisputable.
The trends are what they are, but what nobody seems to want to acknowledge is that for all his incremental improvements, Bedard is only now reaching the level of performance that Zambrano has maintained for 4 years. It's great that he's getting better, but Z's been where Bedard is now for his whole career.

I'll put my money on Zambrano returning to the level of performance he's sustained for four years ahead of Bedard remaining where he's been for one year. Both could happen, though. Not denying that.

[Sports Guy]

Do you believe that in baseball, past performance is not an indicator of future results? I surely wouldn't agree with that. Therefore past performance is not only a valid consideration, but also one that favors Z.Do you think 2004 and 2005 have more relevance to future perforamce over 2006 and 2007??


I don't buy the theory that Zambrano is in a "decline stage". Not after seeing him pitch over the last ~3 months to an ERA around 2.5 and being mostly unhittable.
So, his declining stats don't mean anything to you?

[mweb]

In fairness to Zambrano's 2007 stats, he seemed to be off his game early in the year due to the contract negotiations.

[Sports Guy]

In fairness to Zambrano's 2007 stats, he seemed to be off his game early in the year due to the contract negotiations.

And had Bedard not had a knee injury in 2005, maybe he is working on his third straight better year than Zambrano....See, i can find excuses too!

[mweb]

And had Bedard not had a knee injury in 2005, maybe he is working on his third straight better year than Zambrano....See, i can find excuses too!

I'm not saying Z is better now or will be better in the future, I said the opposite. I'm just trying to be fair with the assessment, and if you're going to do that, I don't see how you can ignore a reason why he struggled early this season. He's obviously stepped up his game since then, although his last two starts have been poor. If he was an Oriole, I'm quite sure many would be throwing that excuse out left and right and looking at his stats since then instead of using the whole season. See you talking about Bedard either of the last two years for an example.

[davearm]

Do you think 2004 and 2005 have more relevance to future perforamce over 2006 and 2007??
I certainly don't recall saying that.

So, his declining stats don't mean anything to you?
LOL, I answered that question in the very next sentence after the one you bolded.

[davearm]

I'm not saying Z is better now or will be better in the future, I said the opposite. I'm just trying to be fair with the assessment, and if you're going to do that, I don't see how you can ignore a reason why he struggled early this season. He's obviously stepped up his game since then, although his last two starts have been poor. If he was an Oriole, I'm quite sure many would be throwing that excuse out left and right and looking at his stats since then instead of using the whole season. See you talking about Bedard either of the last two years for an example.
Indeed. Until this year, it's been one excuse and rationalization after another to explain why Bedard's final numbers just aren't that good.

Poor SG's been waiting and waiting for me offer some explanation for Zambrano, so he can pounce with that "see I can make excuses too" line.

At least you indulged him. ;)

[Fairfax Bird]

Alright Dave, I have totaled where each team has finished in total runs scored out of 30 teams over the last four years. Take a look and tell me that the NLC is not below average offensive division. Their offenses are down right offensive.

Yankees 1.5
Red Sox 3.75
Cardinals 13
Orioles 14
Blue Jays 15
Reds 15
Cubs 19.75
Astros 20.25
D-Rays 21.25
Brewers 21.25
Pirates 27

Clearly Zambrano has benefited from pitching in a division that over the past 4 years has featured only 1 team that has finished on average in the top half of the league and having 4 teams that are below average. Meanwhile, only the D-Rays are below average in the ALE.

On the other hand Bedard has had to face the top 2 offenses over that period of time, a third is exactly average.

What this tells me is that even the bottom three teams in the AL East on average are better offensively than those weak-a$$ teams in the NL Central.:D

[Sports Guy]

Alright Dave, I have totaled where each team has finished in total runs scored out of 30 teams over the last four years. Take a look and tell me that the NLC is not below average offensive division. Their offenses are down right offensive.

Yankees 1.5
Red Sox 3.75
Cardinals 13
Orioles 14
Blue Jays 15
Reds 15
Cubs 19.75
Astros 20.25
D-Rays 21.25
Brewers 21.25
Pirates 27

Clearly Zambrano has benefited from pitching in a division that over the past 4 years has featured only 1 team that has finished on average in the top half of the league and having 4 teams that are below average. Meanwhile, only the D-Rays are below average in the ALE.

On the other hand Bedard has had to face the top 2 offenses over that period of time, a third is exactly average.

What this tells me is that even the bottom three teams in the AL East on average are better offensively than those weak-a$$ teams in the NL Central.:D
Yea but you have to take out Boston and NY. :rolleyes:

[Fairfax Bird]

Yea but you have to take out Boston and NY. :rolleyes:


Go ahead and take them out and we are still a better offensive division. Wow. They suck.

[Sports Guy]

Indeed. Until this year, it's been one excuse and rationalization after another to explain why Bedard's final numbers just aren't that good.

Poor SG's been waiting and waiting for me offer some explanation for Zambrano, so he can pounce with that "see I can make excuses too" line.

At least you indulged him. ;)

If you don't think Bedard's numbers last year ended up being good, then obviously you don't think Zambrano's were good because he was better than Z.

[davearm]

Alright Dave, I have totaled where each team has finished in total runs scored out of 30 teams over the last four years. Take a look and tell me that the NLC is not below average offensive division. Their offenses are down right offensive.

Yankees 1.5
Red Sox 3.75
Cardinals 13
Orioles 14
Blue Jays 15
Reds 15
Cubs 19.75
Astros 20.25
D-Rays 21.25
Brewers 21.25
Pirates 27

Clearly Zambrano has benefited from pitching in a division that over the past 4 years has featured only 1 team that has finished on average in the top half of the league and having 4 teams that are below average. Meanwhile, only the D-Rays are below average in the ALE.

On the other hand Bedard has had to face the top 2 offenses over that period of time, a third is exactly average.

What this tells me is that even the bottom three teams in the AL East on average are better offensively than those weak-a$$ teams in the NL Central.:D
That proves the same point I made earlier.

The O's, Jays, and DRays produce like the NLC average.

The only difference is you used league rankings, and I used RPG.

[davearm]

Yea but you have to take out Boston and NY. :rolleyes:
Obviously you do when your point is to illustrate that after NYY and BOS, the ALE is mediocre.

Try and keep up here.

[Sports Guy]

Obviously you do when your point is to illustrate that after NYY and BOS, the ALE is mediocre.

Try and keep up here.
It is tough trying to keep up with your ridiculous comments but i guess i can try.

:rolleyes:

[davearm]

If you don't think Bedard's numbers last year ended up being good, then obviously you don't think Zambrano's were good because he was better than Z.
We've already gone over this.

Bedard was only better if you ignore run prevention in favor of BB/9 or whatever peripheral stat helps you sleep at night.

[Fairfax Bird]

That proves the same point I made earlier.

The O's, Jays, and DRays produce like the NLC average.

The only difference is you used league rankings, and I used RPG.


Actually the Os and Jays perform with the best NLC teams. That means they are better than the average crappy NLC team. You can see it, you just don't want to admit it.

[Sports Guy]

We've already gone over this.

Bedard was only better if you ignore run prevention in favor of BB/9 or whatever peripheral stat helps you sleep at night.

Dave, you can't possibly be this stupid.

If Bedard was in the NL, do you think he would have been better than Zambrano?

If Zambrano was in the AL, do you think he would have been better than BEdard?

I am trying to keep this as simple as i can for you...Just answer those 2 questions.

[davearm]

Actually the Os and Jays perform with the best NLC teams. That means they are better than the average crappy NLC team. You can see it, you just don't want to admit it.
The O's, Jays, and DRays collectively produce like the NLC average.

[Sports Guy]

The O's, Jays, and DRays collectively produce like the NLC average.

Well take TB out...I mean hell, we are taking Boston and NY out.

You know what, screw it...Let's take out the whole division...That is probably the only way the NLC scores more runs.

[Sports Guy]

BTW, 5 of the bottom 7 NL teams in pitching(using ERA) are in the central. So, the NL central gets to hit against the worse pitching in their league.

The AL East has 2 of the top 3, 3 out of the top 7 and 4 out of the 8 in the AL.

[Fairfax Bird]

The O's, Jays, and DRays collectively produce like the NLC average.


OK so the bottom three teams in our division collectively perform to your average. Doesn't say much for your division. Think of how much worse your pitching would be having to face the Red Sox and Yankees 38 times.

Comparing our divisions is apples and oranges. Our division is much tougher TOP to bottom.

[Fairfax Bird]

So what we are saying is when dealing with the competition that they face the most (within the division) that Zambrano has it MUCH easier than Bedard.

I think that is a fair statement based on all that I presented.

[davearm]

Dave, you can't possibly be this stupid.

If Bedard was in the NL, do you think he would have been better than Zambrano?

If Zambrano was in the AL, do you think he would have been better than BEdard?

I am trying to keep this as simple as i can for you...Just answer those 2 questions.
There's absolutely no possible way to answer either of those questions definitively. The whole exercise is completely futile.

[davearm]

OK so the bottom three teams in our division collectively perform to your average. Doesn't say much for your division. Think of how much worse your pitching would be having to face the Red Sox and Yankees 38 times.

Comparing our divisions is apples and oranges. Our division is much tougher TOP to bottom.
Correction.

Your division is much tougher top to second. ;)

[Sports Guy]

There's absolutely no possible way to answer either of those questions definitively. The whole exercise is completely futile.

Just what i thought you would say...Well, then ignore the normal .50 run incrwase/decrase from league to league.

Bedard allowed 1 more run in 18 less innings last year...He did that in the better league and the better division.

The difference was very minimal.

For you to ignore that is a complete joke but typical for you.

[CrimsonTribe]

Let me make this very simple for everyone.

From 2003 to now:
* The Sox and Yanks have combined to average 5.57 RPG.
* The other three ALE teams have combined to average 4.68 RPG.
* The six NLC teams have combined to average 4.61 RPG.

CONCLUSION: After the top two teams, the rest of the ALE plays about like the NLC.

So what you're saying is that the AL East is essentially as tough as the NL Central PLUS the two best offenses in baseball?

[davearm]

Well take TB out...I mean hell, we are taking Boston and NY out.

You know what, screw it...Let's take out the whole division...That is probably the only way the NLC scores more runs.
Just because you can't follow the argument doesn't mean your proper course of action is to continue to say foolish things.

[RZNJ]

1. Dave insinuates that Bedard's good start in 2005 was a fluke.
2. Dave states that Bedard's fine 2006 season is flukish because he wasn't consistent enough to Dave's liking.
3. Dave's not happy enough with Bedard's excellent 2007 season because it's only one year.
4. You can be sure that Dave will find something to cry about next year as well in regards to Bedard, no matter how good a season he has.
5. As a balancing act to over zealous Orioles fans, Dave's act is getting tiresome.

[Sports Guy]

Just because you can't follow the stupid argument that Dave is making doesn't mean your proper course of action is to continue to say foolish things.

Yea, i guess i can't.:rolleyes:

[davearm]

Just what i thought you would say...Well, then ignore the normal .50 run incrwase/decrase from league to league.

Bedard allowed 1 more run in 18 less innings last year...He did that in the better league and the better division.

The difference was very minimal.

For you to ignore that is a complete joke but typical for you.
Give me a break.

You know what they say about asking a stupid question...

Hey SG, the Yanks and O's are playing today; the Yanks have a .600 record, and the O's have a .400 record... so who's gonna win?

Albert Pujols is up and he's a .300 hitter... so is he gonna get a hit or make an out?

All are equally as futile as what you asked me.

[RShack]

Yankees 1.5
Red Sox 3.75
Cardinals 13
Orioles 14
Blue Jays 15
Reds 15
Cubs 19.75
Astros 20.25
D-Rays 21.25
Brewers 21.25
Pirates 27

As some of you will know, I have no dog in this hunt. I don't find myself in arguments between SG and Davearm, mainly because they argue about stuff that I don't pay much attention to. But, after staring at this list for a few moments, I must say that things are not looking up for Dave's side in this one.

And then somebody says that the NL-Central pitching sucks too, so they're scoring Not Much against crappy pitching. Hmmm. This actually sound pretty bad for Dave's side.

Can we all agree that the they would kick the hell out of the PCL?

[Sports Guy]

Give me a break.

You know what they say about asking a stupid question...

Hey SG, the Yanks and O's are playing today; the Yanks have a .600 record, and the O's have a .400 record... so who's gonna win?

Albert Pujols is up and he's a .300 hitter... so is he gonna get a hit or make an out?

All are equally as futile as what you asked me.

So, you are going to ignore the ERA differences from league to league?

Let me ask this a different way.

If things play out as they normally do(in terms of the ERA differences from league to league), who would have been better at preventing runs last year?

Again, just to refresh your memory....Bedard gave up ONE more run in 18 less IP.

[davearm]

So what you're saying is that the AL East is essentially as tough as the NL Central PLUS the two best offenses in baseball?
No I'm disproving the misconception that the ALE is a juggernaut division.

The ALE is two juggernauts, and a bunch of mediocrity.

Or put another way, however good the ALE is as a division is completely attributable to the two teams at the top... the other three aren't contributing anything worth writing home about, and they're not striking anything remotely resembling fear into opposing pitchers.

[RZNJ]

No I'm disproving the misconception that the ALE is a juggernaut division.

The ALE is two juggernauts, and a bunch of mediocrity.

Or put another way, however good the ALE is as a division is completely attributable to the two teams at the top... the other three aren't contributing anything worth writing home about.


Duh! Has anyone actually said anything different?

[davearm]

So, you are going to ignore the ERA differences from league to league?

Let me ask this a different way.

If things play out as they normally do(in terms of the ERA differences from league to league), who would have been better at preventing runs last year?

Again, just to refresh your memory....Bedard gave up ONE more run in 18 less IP.
You keep repeating that Bedard gave up more runs in fewer IP.

And this helps your argument how, exactly?

[Sports Guy]

You keep repeating that Bedard gave up more runs in fewer IP.

And this helps your argument how, exactly?
You know what...I think it is time to put you on ignore.

You are just tiresome...You have been killed in this argument..Every stats that has been put in front of you has showed you to be wrong and you just don't care.

So, since i don't need Tony coming to your rescue again, i think i will just put you on ignore.

[RShack]

No I'm disproving the misconception that the ALE is a juggernaut division.
I think you've proved that the O's should join the NL Central. This would seem to be the most direct route to becoming a contender. The Brewers did it, and now they're only a game out. Why can't we?

[davearm]

You know what...I think it is time to put you on ignore.

You are just tiresome...You have been killed in this argument..Every stats that has been put in front of you has showed you to be wrong and you just don't care.

So, since i don't need Tony coming to your rescue again, i think i will just put you on ignore.
LOL, now here come the threats.

Grow up pal.

[davearm]

I think you've proved that the O's should join the NL Central. This would seem to be the most direct route to becoming a contender. The Brewers did it, and now they're only a game out. Why can't we?
C'mon over, the more the merrier.

After ten years or whatever the Brewers have yet to finish with a winning record playing in this wretched division, but I'm sure the O's would zoom straight to the top.

[Go_Os]

Everybody also seems to have the perception that Bedard is better than Zambrano (LOL at that, but whatever).


Bedard is better than Zambrano. You think because Zambrano is bigger and stronger that he's better? Bedard dominates and he has to face very tough AL lineups, which until the NL, includes a DH (Yankees, Red Sox, Toronto, Cleveland etc.).

I like Zambrano, but I'd take Bedard over him in a heartbeat (am not just because I'm an O's fan).

[RShack]

C'mon over, the more the merrier.

After ten years or whatever the Brewers have yet to finish with a winning record playing in this wretched division, but I'm sure the O's would zoom straight to the top.
I was mainly joshing you ;-)

[CrimsonTribe]

No I'm disproving the misconception that the ALE is a juggernaut division.

The ALE is two juggernauts, and a bunch of mediocrity.

Or put another way, however good the ALE is as a division is completely attributable to the two teams at the top... the other three aren't contributing anything worth writing home about, and they're not striking anything remotely resembling fear into opposing pitchers.

While the NL Central is just a bunch of mediocrity, which you have shown.

[davearm]

While the NL Central is just a bunch of mediocrity, which you have shown.
Typically, the NLC has 2 or 3 above average (or even great) offensive teams -- teams that are better than the ALE second tier, even given the ALE teams use the DH.

[davearm]

I was mainly joshing you ;-)
Alrighty then. ;)

[Lucky Jim]

Typically, the NLC has 2 or 3 above average (or even great) offensive teams -- teams that are better than the ALE second tier, even given the ALE teams use the DH.

Typically? As in more years than not? As in the "vast majority" of years? As in, when this is not the case it's a rare exception to the rule?

[davearm]

Bedard is better than Zambrano. You think because Zambrano is bigger and stronger that he's better? Bedard dominates and he has to face very tough AL lineups, which until the NL, includes a DH (Yankees, Red Sox, Toronto, Cleveland etc.).

I like Zambrano, but I'd take Bedard over him in a heartbeat (am not just because I'm an O's fan).
Bedard has had a better, more dominant year in 2007, with superior peripheral statistics.

Everything else that matters favors Zambrano.

[davearm]

Typically? As in more years than not? As in the "vast majority" of years? As in, when this is not the case it's a rare exception to the rule?
I'd say "more often than not" would be the most correct definition of "typically." ;)

[square634]

Bedard has had a better, more dominant year in 2007, with superior peripheral statistics.

Everything else that matters favors Zambrano.

So the peripheral statistics last year and the difference in league/division (which you have to admit exist even if you think they are overstated) don't matter?

[Lucky Jim]

I'd say "more often than not" would be the most correct definition of "typically." ;)

Then how do you explain the averages that put every team except for St. Louis beneath the O's and Blue Jays over the last four years.

Do teams alternate they're "good" or "great" years with years so poor that they're average is terrible? I'm not sure I follow.

[JayGibbons31]

Combined Record of teams Bedard has pitched against this year 932-918

Combined Record of teams Zambrano has pitched against this year 774-827

Bedard has faced better competition and put up better numbers this year any way you look at it.

[davearm]

So the peripheral statistics last year and the difference in league/division (which you have to admit exist even if you think they are overstated) don't matter?
Of course they matter. They are a factor, along with a half-dozen or so others, most of which favor Zambrano.

[RShack]

Bedard has had a better, more dominant year in 2007, with superior peripheral statistics.

Everything else that matters favors Zambrano.
I ain't arguing, I just wanna make sure I understand. This thread is up to about 200 posts, and there's been a lot of pissin' on trees which sorta obscures things.

Do I have the following points correct?:
When it comes to Actual Pitching Performance So Far, everybody agrees with the 2 statements from dave, above.
The disagreement is about what stats suggest about who has the rosier outlook.
Dave says you gotta go with track record, as it is the best available predictor.
Those who disagree with Dave point out that "track record" focuses on the past, not the future.
Some who disagree with Dave point to marginal indicators of decline.
In the end, the disagreement is whether to trust past performance (which favors CZ) vs. to trust the marginal indicators of decline plus current performance (which don't).

Is this more-or-less the gist of it?

[Sports Guy]

OPS+:

Mil: 107
ChC: 95
Cin: 97
Pitt: 94
StL: 99
Hou: 95

Average: 99.4

Average taking out highest: 96

NYY: 124
Bos: 109
Bal: 97
TB: 97
Tor: 95

Average: 104.4

Average taking out highest: 99.5

Average taking out Boston and NY: 96

[square634]

Of course they matter. They are a factor, along with a half-dozen or so others, most of which favor Zambrano.

Then it just comes down to how much you weight recent performance vs. 2+ years ago. Based on the trends, and no doubt the fact that I'm an O's fan, I'd tend to weight the more recent numbers more heavily.

[davearm]

Then how do you explain the averages that put every team except for St. Louis beneath the O's and Blue Jays over the last four years.

Do teams alternate they're "good" or "great" years with years so poor that they're average is terrible? I'm not sure I follow.
That's pretty much exactly what's happening.

The NLC teams tend to vaccilate from the top to the bottom moreso than the ALE teams do. The Cards spent several years as the best offensive team in the division, and now they're at or near the bottom. The Brewers go the other way... bad in the recent past, but leading the division now.

Anyway, I did a little homework on the NLC and RPG.

2007: 2 teams with RPG above the MLB average; 3 teams with RPG above the ALE #3 team.
2006: zero and zero.
2005: 2 and 2.
2004: 3 and 1.
2003: 2 and 1.

So 2006 was the only year the NLC didn't have at least 2 above average offensive teams, and at least 1 better than the ALE's third-best.

[davearm]

Then it just comes down to how much you weight recent performance vs. 2+ years ago. Based on the trends, and no doubt the fact that I'm an O's fan, I'd tend to weight the more recent numbers more heavily.
Well it's more complicated than that.

It's...
2007 performance (Bedard)
Current peripherals (Bedard) vs.
Age (Zambrano)
Durability (Zambrano)
Career stats (Zambrano)
Consistency (Zambrano)
PECOTA projection (Zambrano)

I threw in body type too, but that's certainly not a major one.

The Bedard camp thinks the first two trump the last 5. I disagree.

[davearm]

OPS+:

Mil: 107
ChC: 95
Cin: 97
Pitt: 94
StL: 99
Hou: 95

Average: 99.4

Average taking out highest: 96

NYY: 124
Bos: 109
Bal: 97
TB: 97
Tor: 95

Average: 104.4

Average taking out highest: 99.5

Average taking out Boston and NY: 96
Like I've said all along, BAL, TOR, and TB fit right into the middle of the NLC.

[Lucky Jim]

Like I've said all along, BAL, TOR, and TB fit right into the middle of the NLC.

But what does this point mean? If half the games we play against the AL East are against Boston and NY, why would you eliminate them again? What does it prove, exactly?

[davearm]

But what does this point mean? If half the games we play against the AL East are against Boston and NY, why would you eliminate them again? What does it prove, exactly?
Well if you go back about ten pages, this was initially in response to someone claiming that the ALE was a powerhouse division (paraphrasing).

I corrected that to say the ALE was a division with two powerhouse teams, and the rest was mediocre.

Hence, fitting TOR, BAL, and TB right into the middle of a mediocre division would seem to support that line of thinking.

It was a seemingly minor point, but apparently people are so interested in exploring this nuance that the discussion has lasted this long. ;)

[mweb]

Well it's more complicated than that.

It's...
2007 performance (Bedard)
Current peripherals (Bedard) vs.
Age (Zambrano)
Durability (Zambrano)
Career stats (Zambrano)
Consistency (Zambrano)
PECOTA projection (Zambrano)

I threw in body type too, but that's certainly not a major one.

The Bedard camp thinks the first two trump the last 5. I disagree.

Well you can throw in 2006 peripherals on Bedards side as well. I'm not sure you can really consider PECOTA at this point since it doesn't factor in this season, which I think you'd have to concede has changed things a lot.

[Lucky Jim]

Well if you go back about ten pages, this was initially in response to someone claiming that the ALE was a powerhouse division (paraphrasing).

I corrected that to say the ALE was a division with two powerhouse teams, and the rest was mediocre.

Hence, fitting TOR, BAL, and TB right into the middle of a mediocre division would seem to support that line of thinking.

It was a seemingly minor point, but apparently people are so interested in exploring this nuance that the discussion has lasted this long. ;)

But that doesn't make any sense. Are you imagining a division in which everyone is "above average"? The Lake Wobegon of MLB? I mean, if the worst teams in a division are average, and the best teams far above average, that is, likely, a very very difficult division.

That said, I don't think the AL East is a "powerhouse" division. Difficult, sure. And tougher than the AL Central? Absolutely.

By the way, I watched Zambrano pitch the other night at Wrigley (against the Reds). Just eyeballing him, I'd much rather have Bedard. ;)

[mweb]

But that doesn't make any sense. Are you imagining a division in which everyone is "above average"? The Lake Wobegon of MLB? I mean, if the worst teams in a division are average, and the best teams far above average, that is, likely, a very very difficult division.

That said, I don't think the AL East is a "powerhouse" division. Difficult, sure. And tougher than the AL Central? Absolutely.
By the way, I watched Zambrano pitch the other night at Wrigley (against the Reds). Just eyeballing him, I'd much rather have Bedard. ;)

Yeah, the bold-ed part is the key takeaway from this debate, I'd hope that Dave wouldn't disagree with that, especially when we're comparing an O's pitcher who has to face the two juggernauts vs a Cubs pitcher.

[Sports Guy]

Well you can throw in 2006 peripherals on Bedards side as well. I'm not sure you can really consider PECOTA at this point since it doesn't factor in this season, which I think you'd have to concede has changed things a lot.Over the last 2 years, Zambrano has these stats on his side:

ERA, ERA+ and K rate last year...Everything else goes on the side of Bedard.

The ERA and ERA+ stats were very close and if Zambrano was in the AL or Bedard was in the NL, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that Bedard ends up preventing runs better.

Dave doesn't want to acknowledge the league differences, so it is pointless to bring the obvious up to him.

[Sports Guy]

BTW, let's look at BABIP stats:

CZ:

2005: 258
2006: 265
2007: 269

EB:

2005: 320
2006: 320
2007: 292

So, 2 years of EB being unlucky and one year being average and 3 years of Zambrano being lucky, which explains the higher theoretical ERAs.

Oh well, i am sure this is more data that means nothing. :rolleyes:

[mweb]

Over the last 2 years, Zambrano has these stats on his side:

ERA, ERA+ and K rate last year...Everything else goes on the side of Bedard.

The ERA and ERA+ stats were very close and if Zambrano was in the AL or Bedard was in the NL, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that Bedard ends up preventing runs better.

Dave doesn't want to acknowledge the league differences, so it is pointless to bring the obvious up to him.

Well Wrigley is harder to pitch in, and CZ did pitch 18 more innings, so I'm willing to give him the slight edge in performance last year, with Bedard have the better indicators. Either way, it's close, I don't think it makes as much of a difference in this debate as it's being made into.

[davearm]

But that doesn't make any sense. Are you imagining a division in which everyone is "above average"? The Lake Wobegon of MLB? I mean, if the worst teams in a division are average, and the best teams far above average, that is, likely, a very very difficult division.

That said, I don't think the AL East is a "powerhouse" division. Difficult, sure. And tougher than the AL Central? Absolutely.

By the way, I watched Zambrano pitch the other night at Wrigley (against the Reds). Just eyeballing him, I'd much rather have Bedard. ;)
That's basically what I was inferring from other folks' comments.

The term "murderer's row" was used to describe the offenses in the ALE.

[Lucky Jim]

BTW, let's look at BABIP stats:

CZ:

2005: 258
2006: 265
2007: 269

EB:

2005: 320
2006: 320
2007: 292

So, 2 years of EB being unlucky and one year being average and 3 years of Zambrano being lucky, which explains the higher theoretical ERAs.

Oh well, i am sure this is more data that means nothing. :rolleyes:

Three full years SG? I'm pretty sure that's not luck.

[Sports Guy]

Three full years SG? I'm pretty sure that's not luck.

Call it what you want but it is below league average.

Below is luckier...Above is unluckier.

Before that, it was in the more normal ranges.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah, the bold-ed part is the key takeaway from this debate, I'd hope that Dave wouldn't disagree with that, especially when we're comparing an O's pitcher who has to face the two juggernauts vs a Cubs pitcher.

Of course I meant NL Central. But oh, well.

[davearm]

BTW, let's look at BABIP stats:

CZ:

2005: 258
2006: 265
2007: 269

EB:

2005: 320
2006: 320
2007: 292

So, 2 years of EB being unlucky and one year being average and 3 years of Zambrano being lucky, which explains the higher theoretical ERAs.

Oh well, i am sure this is more data that means nothing. :rolleyes:
So when does BABIP stop being a measure of luck, and start being a measure of how difficult it is to hit the ball hard off of a particular pitcher?

Seems like 3 years with very little variation would be sufficient.

[Lucky Jim]

Call it what you want but it is below league average.

Below is luckier...Above is unluckier.

Before that, it was in the more normal ranges.

I think you're mis-using the statistic - BABIP can be used to infer luck when a pitcher has a year that deviates from the norm. But 90+ stats...well, that seems like something other than good luck.

The fact of the matter is, some pitchers MAY be able to maintain a low BABIP over time. There's nothing that says they can't -- BABIP is generally considered a stat that pitchers can't control, but that's just a rough approximation of an objective rule.

[Sports Guy]

Call it what you want but it is below league average.

Below is luckier...Above is unluckier.

Before that, it was in the more normal ranges.

BTW, to add to this...His first 3 years in the league, he was in the average ranges.

This year, he is very close to average, so calling him lucky probably isn't fair.

Last year it was close.

Either way, when looking at this and comparing it to Bedard, you can see how the differences in runs allowed could be made up fairly easily.

[RShack]

The fact of the matter is, some pitchers MAY be able to maintain a low BABIP over time. There's nothing that says they can't -- BABIP is generally considered a stat that pitchers can't control, but that's just a rough approximation of an objective rule.
If you get a chance, I'd like you to say more about this...

[Sports Guy]

I think you're mis-using the statistic - BABIP can be used to infer luck when a pitcher has a year that deviates from the norm. But 90+ stats...well, that seems like something other than good luck.

The fact of the matter is, some pitchers MAY be able to maintain a low BABIP over time. There's nothing that says they can't -- BABIP is generally considered a stat that pitchers can't control, but that's just a rough approximation of an objective rule.

Remember, just using this as a tool to compare him with Bedard.

Not trying to say anything but that.

[davearm]

Remember, just using this as a tool to compare him with Bedard.

Not trying to say anything but that.
The point is to clarify what the BABIP data is telling us.

Zambrano has a lower BABIP than Bedard... but why? Better luck, or better talent?

If it's the latter (which is entirely possible) then you'd better keep your mouth shut. ;)

[Lucky Jim]

If you get a chance, I'd like you to say more about this...

From The Hardball Times:


The game of baseball is saturated with luck—round ball, round bat. Uncertain outcomes are part of the game’s appeal. The BABIP phenomenon appears random at a large scale because we typically observe it in a way that is random when part of the information is hidden from the observer. In this article I’ve exposed some of the hidden information about the performances of two pitchers whose BABIP seems especially random. Although luck was certainly a factor, a large portion of each pitcher’s BABIP variance can be explained by non-spurious baseball regularities.

Chalking up BABIP as merely the result of chance outcomes does disservice to pitchers’ skill at preventing solid contact, which is the essence of pitching. Tossing a coin is chance, not skill, because you can’t control the result by how you flip the coin. Pitchers demonstrate skill in their control over the hardness of hitter contact, which indirectly but positively affects outcomes on in-park batted balls.

BABIP inevitably includes a random element because of the many unpredictable external events involved in a putout. After a recent loss to the Giants, Tom Glavine complained that “When their guys are hitting ground balls, I’m doing my job. I’m just not getting the results. There’s nothing I can say to make people understand when you go out there, do what you want to do, make the pitches and you don’t get the results.” That’s BABIP luck, the disconnect between pitching skill and batted ball outcome.

But some of the randomness in BABIP, as shown in the Zito and Greinke examples, amounts to a missing data problem. Ordinary baseball records omit pitch and batted ball attribute values, limiting our understanding of pitcher contributions to BABIP.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/a-different-look-at-babip/

[RShack]

From The Hardball Times:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/a-different-look-at-babip/
That makes perfect sense, re: both the non-randomness and the missing-data problem.

So why would people think P's don't have influence over it?

[Lucky Jim]

That makes perfect sense, re: both the non-randomness and the missing-data problem.

So why would people think P's don't have influence over it?

Well, because big-picture, almost everyone reverts to near-norm. Even great pitchers like Clemens average to the .290-.300 range. AND, even great pitchers like Clemens have years where they're far above and far below. So, because there's missing data that can explain the variation, I think, a lot of it gets written up to luck. Too much, likely.

[Baltimoron]

From The Hardball Times:



http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/a-different-look-at-babip/

Wow: 2 potential outliers. There is some control, but not much. First off:

as stated in the comments: Something overlooked in the zito analysis is the BABIP of his other years. In 2003 (before he threw the slider) it was .248, in 2002 is was .254 and in 2001 it was .294, afterwards it was .280 and .282 in a new league (where everything is different:eek: ) This "skill" that zito exhibited in 2005, and lack thereof in 2004, was randomly dispersed throughout his career; high (or average) in some years, and incredibly low in others. After all, Zito gave up more line drives on batted balls in 2005 than in 2004, more groundballs, fewer flyballs, and more home runs per flyball. All these things point to a higher BABIP in 2005.

Correlation != causation
<img src="http://a1.vox.com/6a00b8ea067a4edece00c22523c741604a-500pi">

About DIPS and BABIP, from 2004:


In conclusion, while it appears that Voros was essentially correct in that a pitcher has little control over his BABIP, he was not able to investigate this phenomenon on a more granular level, which requires an analysis of PBP data. Such an analysis suggests that pitchers may have more or less control over various components of their BIP than their overall $H y-t-y correlation would imply. In fact, good pitchers probably tend to give up fewer and softer line drives and easier pop flies than do poorer pitchers. It also appears that defense and park factors, and perhaps even PBP scorers, can exert considerable influence on a pitcher�s y-t-y correlations for $H or for various of the BIP components. Finally, Voros failed to explain the considerable influence that sample size (the number of BIP, not the number of pitcher seasons in the sample) has on the y-t-y correlations, regardless of the pitcher�s skill and the spread of talent in the population.
DIPS Revisited (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2004-02-29_0/)

Go Pitchfx for the future.

[davearm]

From The Hardball Times:



http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/a-different-look-at-babip/

Here's what I found most compelling in that article:

To begin to understand the BABIP phenomenon, consider what happens before and after the moment of contact. When the timing and barrel accuracy of the hitter’s swing put the sweet spot of the bat on the ball with full arm extension, solid contact produces maximum batted ball velocity. Scouting databases code these balls as well or hard hit. During the 2004-05 seasons, 59% of well-hit in-park balls were hits, while 19% of other in-park batted balls resulted in hits.
At the extremes, this seems to imply that:
a) A pitcher that is so skillful as never to allow a hard-hit ball will have an expected BABIP of .190.
b) A really really lousy pitcher that everyone tees off on, all the time, will have an expected BABIP of .590.

This seems to leave all sorts of room for pitchers to exert influence over their BABIP, based strictly on their ability to prevent hard-hit balls using velocity, movement, location, deception, variety, etc.

It also seems completely consistent with common sense: better pitchers will tend to have lower BABIPs simply because it's more difficult to make solid contact against them.

Now there are certainly many other factors to be considered here. But a big one seems to be very much under the pitcher's control.

[Lucky Jim]

Wow: 2 potential outliers. There is some control, but not much. First off:

as stated in the comments: Something overlooked in the zito analysis is the BABIP of his other years. In 2003 (before he threw the slider) it was .248, in 2002 is was .254 and in 2001 it was .294, afterwards it was .280 and .282 in a new league (where everything is different:eek: ) This "skill" that zito exhibited in 2005, and lack thereof in 2004, was randomly dispersed throughout his career; high (or average) in some years, and incredibly low in others. After all, Zito gave up more line drives on batted balls in 2005 than in 2004, more groundballs, fewer flyballs, and more home runs per flyball. All these things point to a higher BABIP in 2005.

Correlation != causation
<img src="http://a1.vox.com/6a00b8ea067a4edece00c22523c741604a-500pi">

About DIPS and BABIP, from 2004:


DIPS Revisited (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2004-02-29_0/)

Go Pitchfx for the future.

Hey now, I was just looking for something that would explain why there's some skepticism that a rule like "everything below .290 is luck" might be accurate. And you've failed to address the main point, which is - if Zambrano is pitching to a sub-.275 BABIP for three years running, what are the odds that it is, in SG's words, just three years of good luck? So substitute Zambrano's numbers for Zito and tell us what you see:


2003 Cubs 7.07 3.95 1.79 0.38 .238 1.32 .291 73.0 % 3.63
2004 Cubs 8.07 3.48 2.32 0.60 .227 1.22 .284 79.1 % 3.72
2005 Cubs 8.14 3.47 2.35 0.85 .213 1.15 .258 75.0 % 3.88
2006 Cubs 8.83 4.84 1.83 0.84 .212 1.29 .265 75.6 % 4.19
2007 Cubs 7.45 4.13 1.81 1.07 .232 1.31 .269 76.2 % 4.65

The overall point of what I quoted (analysis of Zito and Greinke aside), which is that there's missing data in straight BABIP, is almost exactly the same as in what you quoted. Of course, it's minus the cheeky sarcasm and mostly condescending tone that we got to experience now that you've tacked on.

Is that value-added component of your work here on the board?

This was the only point being made:


Voros's conclusion, based upon the .153 correlation coefficient above, was "that the ability for pitchers to prevent balls in play doesn�t exist, or if it does, it doesn�t really amount to much for almost all pitchers."

[Lucky Jim]

Here's what I found most compelling in that article:

At the extremes, this seems to imply that:
a) A pitcher that is so skillful as never to allow a hard-hit ball will have an expected BABIP of .190.
b) A really really lousy pitcher that everyone tees off on, all the time, will have an expected BABIP of .590.

This seems to leave all sorts of room for pitchers to exert influence over their BABIP, based strictly on their ability to prevent hard-hit balls using velocity, movement, location, deception, variety, etc.

It also seems completely consistent with common sense: better pitchers will tend to have lower BABIPs simply because it's more difficult to make solid contact against them.

Now there are certainly many other factors to be considered here. But a big one seems to be very much under the pitcher's control.

Except that's not borne out by analysis. Which is the problem. At best, it would appear only SOME (i.e., very very few) pitchers really have any ability to control that to the point of a consistently lower BABIP.

[Baltimoron]

Hey now, I was just looking for something that would explain why there's some skepticism that a rule like "everything below .290 is luck" might be accurate. And you've failed to address the main point, which is - if Zambrano is pitching to a sub-.275 BABIP for three years running, what are the odds that it is, in SG's words, just three years of good luck? So substitute Zambrano's numbers for Zito and tell us what you see:


2003 Cubs 7.07 3.95 1.79 0.38 .238 1.32 .291 73.0 % 3.63
2004 Cubs 8.07 3.48 2.32 0.60 .227 1.22 .284 79.1 % 3.72
2005 Cubs 8.14 3.47 2.35 0.85 .213 1.15 .258 75.0 % 3.88
2006 Cubs 8.83 4.84 1.83 0.84 .212 1.29 .265 75.6 % 4.19
2007 Cubs 7.45 4.13 1.81 1.07 .232 1.31 .269 76.2 % 4.65

The overall point of what I quoted (analysis of Zito and Greinke aside), which is that there's missing data in straight BABIP, is almost exactly the same as in what you quoted. Of course, it's minus the cheeky sarcasm and mostly condescending tone that we got to experience now that you've tacked on.

Is that value-added component of your work here on the board?

This was the only point being made:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

My point is the article you cited is meaningless and does not support the use for which you cited it. That article is garbage, and his two examples don't even support his conclusion (especially Zito). Did you even bother to read it or did you just digest and assimilate it as true? Apparently so, so go read Freakonomics, it'll bring you up to speed correlation and causation and the difference (baby stats).

A much more rigorous, insightful and (as of today) still current and up to date is MGL's article from back in 2004. That's why I posted it.

[Baltimoron]

Except that's not borne out by analysis. Which is the problem. At best, it would appear only SOME (i.e., very very few) pitchers really have any ability to control that to the point of a consistently lower BABIP.

Umm, go read the 2004 article I posted by MGL called "DIPS Revisited."

[Lucky Jim]

Umm, go read the 2004 article I posted by MGL called "DIPS Revisited."

Well, now that you've IM'd me to let me know that you've put me on ignore... :rolleyes:

I HAVE read the article. My point wasn't to hold up the Hardball Times article for its analytical insight - it was to hold it up as an example of the kinds of questions that still remain about BABIP.

These questions are, essentially, about missing information. I didn't much care for the particular analysis - it was decontextualized and unpersuasive. What RShack picked up was that there may be elements that are virtually impossible to distill into pure numbers, for now: that inducing weakly hit balls would seem (common-sensically) to be a matter of talent AND that statistically our ability to understand how this works is limited by the rough nature of the statistics we have (GB/FB/LD). None of these tell us much about hard-hit balls, etc.

By all accounts, for instance, Jim Palmer was the luckiest pitcher on the planet:


1965 Orioles 7.34 5.48 1.34 0.59 .224 1.42 .272 67.4 % 4.31
1966 Orioles 6.35 3.93 1.62 0.91 .231 1.28 .260 77.4 % 4.41
1967 Orioles 4.22 3.67 1.15 1.10 .197 1.10 .196 79.0 % 5.08
1969 Orioles 6.12 3.18 1.92 0.55 .204 1.08 .236 82.0 % 3.71
1970 Orioles 5.87 2.95 1.99 0.62 .234 1.19 .268 79.5 % 3.78
1971 Orioles 5.87 3.38 1.74 0.61 .225 1.20 .258 78.6 % 3.94
1972 Orioles 6.04 2.30 2.63 0.69 .221 1.05 .251 83.3 % 3.63
1973 Orioles 4.80 3.43 1.40 0.49 .212 1.14 .236 80.0 % 4.01
1974 Orioles 4.23 3.48 1.22 0.60 .259 1.37 .281 73.5 % 4.34
1975 Orioles 5.38 2.23 2.41 0.56 .217 1.03 .245 80.8 % 3.57
1976 Orioles 4.54 2.40 1.89 0.57 .223 1.08 .244 77.1 % 3.89
1977 Orioles 5.45 2.79 1.95 0.68 .226 1.13 .253 78.2 % 3.93
1978 Orioles 4.20 2.95 1.42 0.58 .228 1.16 .246 78.8 % 4.10
1979 Orioles 3.87 2.49 1.56 0.69 .247 1.20 .262 71.1 % 4.17
1980 Orioles 4.38 2.97 1.47 1.04 .274 1.39 .289 74.3 % 4.77
1981 Orioles 2.47 3.25 0.76 0.99 .246 1.28 .241 72.2 % 5.21
1982 Orioles 4.08 2.50 1.63 0.87 .233 1.14 .244 76.6 % 4.44
1983 Orioles 3.99 2.23 1.79 1.29 .285 1.37 .292 70.3 % 4.92
1984 Orioles 2.04 8.66 0.24 1.02 .306 2.21 .304 55.3 % 7.11

But is that something we're comfortable with? He had great defense, it's true. But other (good) pitchers (McNally, Cuellar, Flanagan) who pitched with the same defenses had BABIPs of roughly .012 to .015 higher than Palmer over the course of their Oriole careers. Was Palmer simplier luckier over the course of his long career? I guess it's possible. But it would seem unlikely - certain years were lucky, obviously (1969, .236 BABIP) and some years were obviously unlucky (1974, .281 BABIP) but he was pretty steadily in the low-to-mid .200s on BABIP.

Now, I've got to guess that BABIP in the 1970s was lower over all. But how do we understand the difference in BABIP that's statistically significant between pitchers pitching in the same park with the same defense over extended time if it's not a measure of skill (at least to some extent)?


As a side note, this Stephen Levitt fetish seems strange to me. I've read Freakonomics - or at least enough of it - and I've been inundated with his thinking for three years...he teaches at my school and even in my program from time-to-time. Everybody knows that correlation doesn't equal causation. I preach the same thing all of the time. But again, my point in citing the HBT article wasn't the astute analysis of Zito (I could care less) but rather the point that BABIP data isn't complete. That's it. Nothing more.

[Baltimoron]

Here's what I found most compelling in that article:

At the extremes, this seems to imply that:
a) A pitcher that is so skillful as never to allow a hard-hit ball will have an expected BABIP of .190.
b) A really really lousy pitcher that everyone tees off on, all the time, will have an expected BABIP of .590.

This seems to leave all sorts of room for pitchers to exert influence over their BABIP, based strictly on their ability to prevent hard-hit balls using velocity, movement, location, deception, variety, etc.

It also seems completely consistent with common sense: better pitchers will tend to have lower BABIPs simply because it's more difficult to make solid contact against them.

Now there are certainly many other factors to be considered here. But a big one seems to be very much under the pitcher's control.

There is no such thing as a pitcher never giving up a hard hit ball. In real life, batters hit good pitches, and miss easy pitches. The hitter matters too. And pitchers aren't perfect, they are human.

I'm not sure how your statement that something is consistent with your conception of common sense is very instructive or meaningful, epsecially when the data suggests otherwise.

There is no doubt some pitcher control. Maybe we only differ in what we think of as "very much under a pitcher's control"? Can you quantify this comment? 20% of .300 is +/- .06, more or less?

[RShack]

These questions are, essentially, about missing information. I didn't much care for the particular analysis - it was decontextualized and unpersuasive. What RShack picked up was that there may be elements that are virtually impossible to distill into pure numbers, for now: that inducing weakly hit balls would seem (common-sensically) to be a matter of talent AND that statistically our ability to understand how this works is limited by the rough nature of the statistics we have (GB/FB/LD). None of these tell us much about hard-hit balls, etc.

[stuff deleted]

But again, my point in citing the HBT article wasn't the astute analysis of Zito (I could care less) but rather the point that BABIP data isn't complete. That's it. Nothing more.
This is exactly the problem that shows up whenever we try to understand human phenomena, especially those that are complex and interesting. This is true in baseball, just as in anything else that is complex enough to be interesting.

People got steamed at me last year when I kept challenging conclusions that overlooked this simple fact. Somebody would reach some broad sweeping conclusion and apply it to everybody, and then I'd say things like, "You just can't say that... well, you can if you want to, but it's not real..." and all hell would break loose. Some folks even formed the belief that I am somehow anti-stats, which is exactly the opposite of the truth. I am simply anti- glossing over important things like this.

I think it is just this kind of complexity that makes it interesting... to me, the interesting parts get lost if you lose sight of what's missing. In my experience, that's often what mis-use of stats boils down to...

[Lucky Jim]

This is exactly the problem that shows up whenever we try to understand human phenomena, especially those that are complex and interesting. This is true in baseball, just as in anything else that is complex enough to be interesting.

People got steamed at me last year when I kept challenging conclusions that overlooked this simple fact. Somebody would reach some broad sweeping conclusion and apply it to everybody, and then I'd say things like, "You just can't say that... well, you can if you want to, but it's not real..." and all hell would break loose. Some folks even formed the belief that I am somehow anti-stats, which is exactly the opposite of the truth. I am simply anti- glossing over important things like this.

I think it is just this kind of complexity that makes it interesting... to me, the interesting parts get lost if you lose sight of what's missing. In my experience, that's often what mis-use of stats boils down to...

Tragically, Baltimoron won't be able to answer my question re: Palmer and others because he has me on ignore. But I think a statistician's answer to that question would be illuminating.

I'm pro-statistics, too. But when statistics are incomplete, or simply suggest a probability...I don't like treating them as a certainty. We're in the same boat, I think Shack.

That, and apparently Baltimoron came home in a foul mood tonight. Perhaps he'll feel better in the morning. ;)

[Lucky Jim]

Tragically, Baltimoron won't be able to answer my question re: Palmer and others because he has me on ignore. But I think a statistician's answer to that question would be illuminating.

I'm pro-statistics, too. But when statistics are incomplete, or simply suggest a probability...I don't like treating them as a certainty. We're in the same boat, I think Shack.

That, and apparently Baltimoron came home in a foul mood tonight. Perhaps he'll feel better in the morning. ;)

I quoted myself. How narcissistic of me.

The difference between Zambrano and the league average is largely the same as the difference between Palmer and fellow pitchers on his team, btw. We should note, though, that almost every starting pitcher on the Cubs THIS year has a BABIP well below league average.

[pactman12]

Can someon explain to me how I started this thread and my name was taken out of the initial post and my initial post was implanted around the 20th post. I know I wrote the title of the thread. Just wondering how all this works.

[RShack]

I quoted myself. How narcissistic of me.

The difference between Zambrano and the league average is largely the same as the difference between Palmer and fellow pitchers on his team, btw.
Palmer is interesting in many ways...


We should note, though, that almost every starting pitcher on the Cubs THIS year has a BABIP well below league average.
Maybe a new and surprisingly effective Spitball Coach? ;-)

[RShack]

Can someon explain to me how I started this thread and my name was taken out of the initial post and my initial post was implanted around the 20th post. I know I wrote the title of the thread. Just wondering how all this works.
A mysterious anomaly. What's your BABIP?

[Lucky Jim]

Palmer is interesting in many ways...


Maybe a new and surprisingly effective Spitball Coach? ;-)

lol.

Pact - I think that two threads got merged, the Zambrano may have been merged into yours but they used your title to keep it Orioles-related. Just a guess.

No big deal. Be happy you started a thread that caused so much rancor. Congrats!

[Lucky Jim]

I said:


Except that's not borne out by analysis. Which is the problem. At best, it would appear only SOME (i.e., very very few) pitchers really have any ability to control that to the point of a consistently lower BABIP.

He said:


Umm, go read the 2004 article I posted by MGL called "DIPS Revisited."

It said:


As several people have pointed out subsequent to Voros� original articles, that doesn�t necessarily means that a small percentage of individual pitchers or even certain types of pitchers do not have a unique ability to prevent hits on BIP, such that their $H in one year might somewhat predict their $H in another year. What it does mean is that as a general rule, once the bias of a pitcher�s home park and defense are removed, his past $H is a very poor predictor of his future $H.

Hmmm. Now, how is there a contradiction here?

[Baltimoron]

This is exactly the problem that shows up whenever we try to understand human phenomena, especially those that are complex and interesting. This is true in baseball, just as in anything else that is complex enough to be interesting.

People got steamed at me last year when I kept challenging conclusions that overlooked this simple fact. Somebody would reach some broad sweeping conclusion and apply it to everybody, and then I'd say things like, "You just can't say that... well, you can if you want to, but it's not real..." and all hell would break loose. Some folks even formed the belief that I am somehow anti-stats, which is exactly the opposite of the truth. I am simply anti- glossing over important things like this.

I think it is just this kind of complexity that makes it interesting... to me, the interesting parts get lost if you lose sight of what's missing. In my experience, that's often what mis-use of stats boils down to...

There is not as much disagreement as you think. You just really disagree with a lot of people who don't really get what they think they are talking about. Good show!

[pactman12]

A mysterious anomaly. What's your BABIP?

BABIP? What does that mean?

[Lucky Jim]

BABIP? What does that mean?

Batting Average on Balls In Play - the point of the previous three pages of discussion.

I think. Apparently I've been claiming to know more than I actually do. So you may want to get that verified elsewhere.


There is not as much disagreement as you think. You just really disagree with a lot of people who don't really get what they think they are talking about. Good show!

Shack, if you DISAGREE with people who don't get what they think they are talking about does that put you in the right?

[pactman12]

Haha oh ok, thats what I thought.

I love how I can begin a thread and somehow my title is given to someone else and my original post is supplanted in the middle of the thread. I guess I don't post enough.......

Maybe I should take a week or two off from work and put up some meaningless posts like some guys to build up my rep and post #.

[Lucky Jim]

Haha oh ok, thats what I thought.

I love how I can begin a thread and somehow my title is given to someone else and my original post is supplanted in the middle of the thread. I guess I don't post enough.......

Maybe I should take a week or two off from work and put up some meaningless posts like some guys to build up my rep and post #.

It's not conscious and it's not about disrespect (the poster on post #1 isn't some OH bigwig, after all.) It just happens - managing this place is difficult due to volume, sometimes things get clipped. It's no big deal and it's rarely anything personal. Running down other posters for "meaningless" posts isn't going to go over real well, though. The posters with a lot of rep around here (I'm obviously not one of them) generally don't post meaningless stuff - they're well-informed, if opinionated.

Don't invest too much in threads started and whatnot - it's a short-road to frustration.

Not to get off-topic.

[Fairfax Bird]

Typically, the NLC has 2 or 3 above average (or even great) offensive teams -- teams that are better than the ALE second tier, even given the ALE teams use the DH.

That simply isn't true. Over the past four years only the Cardinals have finished sixth in the league in runs twice and the Reds finished fourth once. The rest of the division has been average to completely, utterly below average. They stink. You have had two average offenses. Completely average. The rest have settled between 20 and 27. Not good.

So in four years the entire NLC has had 3 top 12 finishes in total runs scored.

In those same four years the BJs, Os, and DRs have finished in the top 12 4 times. That doesn't count the Yankees and Red Sox who have finished in the top 12 8 times in that period.

The NL Central is a terrible offensive division. To make matter worse besides Pittsburgh and St. Louis they are good hitters parks.

Go ahead and keep making absurd statements about the quality of offenses in your division. I will keep making you look wrong. Which you are.

[RShack]

Shack, if you DISAGREE with people who don't get what they think they are talking about does that put you in the right?
Well, not to be obtuse about it, but that depends...

Person #1: The world is flat.
Person #2: No, you're wrong. The world is square.

[square634]

Tragically, Baltimoron won't be able to answer my question re: Palmer and others because he has me on ignore. But I think a statistician's answer to that question would be illuminating.

I'm pro-statistics, too. But when statistics are incomplete, or simply suggest a probability...I don't like treating them as a certainty. We're in the same boat, I think Shack.

That, and apparently Baltimoron came home in a foul mood tonight. Perhaps he'll feel better in the morning. ;)

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so maybe someone mentioned it, but I thought that pitchers do have some indirect control over their BABIP because they have control over GB/FB ratio. More ground balls become hits (explaining the BABIP of guys like Bradford) whereas flyballs become home runs. I guess Palmer was more of a flyball pitcher,

[davearm]

There is no such thing as a pitcher never giving up a hard hit ball. In real life, batters hit good pitches, and miss easy pitches. The hitter matters too. And pitchers aren't perfect, they are human.

I'm not sure how your statement that something is consistent with your conception of common sense is very instructive or meaningful, epsecially when the data suggests otherwise.

There is no doubt some pitcher control. Maybe we only differ in what we think of as "very much under a pitcher's control"? Can you quantify this comment? 20% of .300 is +/- .06, more or less?
Well of course there is no such thing as a pitcher never giving up a hard hit ball.

There's also no such thing as a hitter hitting a HR every at-bat, but yet saying, "if Player X hit a HR every AB, his SLG would be 4.000" would be a perfectly reasonable way to illustrate the concept of SLG.

As best I can tell, how hard a ball is hit is just one piece of the BABIP puzzle. How large a piece, I can't say. Other factors would include quality of hitters faced, ballpark, defense, and probably some others, including luck. The pitcher is not going to have any control whatsoever over the latter elements, but in theory anyway, he should be able to exert some significant influence over the former.

Ultimately, some carefully-designed empirical research would be required to answer these questions, and to quantify "some" pitcher control in any meaningful, reliable way. You can be sure that I haven't done that research. The article you linked seemed to debunk the earlier research done by McCracken that suggests no pitcher control over BABIP, yet it stopped short of putting a hard number to the "pitcher's control" element of BABIP. The furthest the author was willing to go was to speak in generalities, to wit:

a pitcher may have a fair amount of control over certain components of those BIP. The regression results suggest that good pitchers give up slightly fewer line drives and slightly more pop flies, as a percentage of their total BIP, and that their line drives hit to the outfield (and perhaps their ground balls) may be softer and therefore easier to catch.
If that guy wasn't comfortable/confident enough in the research to express the degree of control a pitcher can exert over BABIP in quantified, percentage terms, then you can be sure that I'm not either.

[Lucky Jim]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so maybe someone mentioned it, but I thought that pitchers do have some indirect control over their BABIP because they have control over GB/FB ratio. More ground balls become hits (explaining the BABIP of guys like Bradford) whereas flyballs become home runs. I guess Palmer was more of a flyball pitcher,

I think you're probably right that he was. But I don't have LB/GB/FB ratios (via Fangraphs) for Palmer OR for other O's pitchers: was McNally a flyball pitcher? Flanagan? This answer only works if each of the Orioles was a flyball pitcher, I guess. And I simply don't know.

That said, Zambrano is NOT a flyball pitcher, so why his BABIP would be lower remains a mystery. Though I still think it worth exploring if a guy who has a low BABIP for three full seasons (nearly 100 starts) should really be written off to luck or not.

Palmer also had very low HR/9 totals (.69 for career), which would be odd for someone who's a flyball pitcher - in that it would correspondingly mean that he's got a low FB/HR ratio -- which is another thing that is typically written off as "luck".

[davearm]

That simply isn't true. Over the past four years only the Cardinals have finished sixth in the league in runs twice and the Reds finished fourth once. The rest of the division has been average to completely, utterly below average. They stink. You have had two average offenses. Completely average. The rest have settled between 20 and 27. Not good.

So in four years the entire NLC has had 3 top 12 finishes in total runs scored.

In those same four years the BJs, Os, and DRs have finished in the top 12 4 times. That doesn't count the Yankees and Red Sox who have finished in the top 12 8 times in that period.

The NL Central is a terrible offensive division. To make matter worse besides Pittsburgh and St. Louis they are good hitters parks.

Go ahead and keep making absurd statements about the quality of offenses in your division. I will keep making you look wrong. Which you are.
Refer back to post #203, if you still care.

2006 was the only year the NLC didn't have at least 2 above average offensive teams, and at least 1 team better than the ALE's third-best.

[RShack]

Ultimately, some carefully-designed empirical research would be required to answer these questions, and to quantify "some" pitcher control in any meaningful, reliable way. You can be sure that I haven't done that research.
Carefully-designed empirical research cannot overcome missing data. This is a lot like the problem of modeling weather: a zillion variables, many of which are poorly understood.


The article you linked seemed to debunk the earlier research done by McCracken that suggests no pitcher control over BABIP, yet it stopped short of putting a hard number to the "pitcher's control" element of BABIP. The furthest the author was willing to go was to speak in generalities...Maybe that's simply because generalities is all that the existing data can support.