Lilly Rotation; Zambrano Bullpen

[MAD]

Is Andy Behrens this guy?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "no"...

To me, this decision proves only that the Chicago Cubs are institutionally broken. It's a baffling, panicky reaction to 15 games worth of data.

I think it was the one and only move that they could make, and for once they didnt screw it up.

Good.  So mock poster?

BUT THEY HAVE THE SAME FIRST NAME AND THE SAME FIRST INITIAL OF THEIR LAST NAME. 

Wait. Does this mean Huey is in the Beastie Boys?

I never liked the Beastie Boys and didn't even know who "Mike D." was when Desipio saved us all in 2003.  True story.

[Bort]

Is Andy Behrens this guy?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "no"...

To me, this decision proves only that the Chicago Cubs are institutionally broken. It's a baffling, panicky reaction to 15 games worth of data.

I think it was the one and only move that they could make, and for once they didnt screw it up.

Good.  So mock poster?

BUT THEY HAVE THE SAME FIRST NAME AND THE SAME FIRST INITIAL OF THEIR LAST NAME. 

Wait. Does this mean Huey is in the Beastie Boys?

I never liked the Beastie Boys and didn't even know who "Mike D." was when Desipio saved us all in 2003.  True story.

Ignorance is no excuse, Mr. Diamond.

[BH]

Is Andy Behrens this guy?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "no"...

To me, this decision proves only that the Chicago Cubs are institutionally broken. It's a baffling, panicky reaction to 15 games worth of data.

I think it was the one and only move that they could make, and for once they didnt screw it up.

Good.  So mock poster?

BUT THEY HAVE THE SAME FIRST NAME AND THE SAME FIRST INITIAL OF THEIR LAST NAME. 

Wait. Does this mean Huey is in the Beastie Boys?

I never liked the Beastie Boys and didn't even know who "Mike D." was when Desipio saved us all in 2003.  True story.

Ignorance is no excuse, Mr. Diamond.

The same night Huey declared his love for aaron miles, he shared with me that him and MikeC used to be bros, so when he picked a desipio name they decided to be wear similar outfits, so Mike went with MikeD.

[Canadouche]

Now, I don't read Goat Riders b/c it's a horrible website that sucks at websiting.  I never have and never will.  I also didn't read much of this thread b/c I hate you all, so this article might be LRZB.  In either case, is this Kurt (scroll down a bit to the links)the same loser douchefag that posts dumb posts here?

Please tell me it's not.  Mainly b/c of the previously stated loser douchefag thing, but also b/c the Q&A thing isn't funny at all.  

Edit:  He links to NSBB too.  Didn't see that.  I wish I could post there.

Since no one directly answered your question, the answer is yes.  Yes it is.  Note the "goatriders.org" on his photoshops.  To wit:

I really don't fucking get this horseshit Kurt Evans photoshop at all.

Sort of the same way I feel about reading most of your articles.  Or was I not supposed to say that?

[CubFaninHydePark]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bort]

I'm no statfag, but I think there's reason to believe that a 1-inning Z influence in close games could lead to more wins than a 5-9 inning Z influence every fifth day. 

The second clause in that sentence renders the first a redundancy.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

The Cubs have already played 8 one or two-run games this season and are 2-6 in them.  Assuming that over the season, the range of 63-70 is accurate, that means the Cubs have 55-62 "close" games left.

Wow. That's not how it works at all.

[Yeti]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OOOORRRRRRR....

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

[R-V]

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, you're really going all out with this "dipshit fan" shtick. Talk about dedication to a bit.

[CubFaninHydePark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OOOORRRRRRR....

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

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

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

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

[Saul Goodman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OOOORRRRRRR....

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

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

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

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

MY HEAD A SPLODE

[thehawk]

I'm assuming this is in effect a disguised skipped start for Z, with a bit of throw a firecracker in the clubhouse effect for Lou.  Anything, else, and this idea is as dumb as nuts and gum.

[R-V]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OOOORRRRRRR....

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

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

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

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

OK, maybe you're being serious. Let me simplify it for you.

Carlos Zambrano is a better pitcher than Tom Gorzellany and Carlos Silva.

Your best pitchers should pitch the most innings.

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

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

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Bort]

I'm assuming this is in effect a disguised skipped start for Z, with a bit of throw a firecracker in the clubhouse effect for Lou.  Anything, else, and this idea is as dumb as nuts and gum.

Well, the average meathead cubs fan is a white male, age 18-49....

[SKO]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OOOORRRRRRR....

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

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

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

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

Okay. Big Z become a full time starter in 2003. In that time period, out of all major league pitchers, he's

9th in Innings Pitched
4th in Games Started
5th in Wins
4th in Win %
3rd in K's
10th in ERA
4th in ERA+ (adjusts for park factors)

Even in the years in which he's "lost a step" or whatever bullshit phrase Kaplan uses, from 2007-Present he's
23rd in innings pitched
11th in Games Started
11th in Wins
9th in Win %
11th in K's
18th in ERA
11th in ERA+

Meaning that out of roughly 150 major league starters every year, he's still (in his "decline") one of the top 23 or better starting pitchers in the majors. Taking a guy like that and making him a middle reliever is absolutely retarded and completely indefensible.