2015 Cubs Offseason: Building a Winner Around David Ross

[Oleg]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

I think the point is that Kershaw doesn't throw 400 innings and still puts up 8 WAR a season. That means Kershaw + some replacement-level schlub throwing 150 innings is worth ~10 WAR a season, basically the value of two aces.

Aren't you more likely to win two games out of two with two starters who give up three runs each, rather than with two starters who give up 1 run in one, and 5 in the other?  Do you swee what I'm getting at?  Am I missing the point?

This is where I run into issues with WAR, even as much as I like it as tool for individual player evaluations. I can't buy that even if Clayton Kershaw is guaranteed to pitch 34 games with a  0.00 ERA, and his team is guaranteed to go 34-0 in those starts, but he's paired with 4 replacement level starting pitchers, that the Dodgers are still going to end up out performing a team that just has 1 or 2 lesser aces and 3 decent back of the rotation options.

But The Dodgers don't have Kershaw and 4-replacement level starters.  The Dodgers have Kershaw and, at least, 4 average major league starters.

[SKO]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

I think the point is that Kershaw doesn't throw 400 innings and still puts up 8 WAR a season. That means Kershaw + some replacement-level schlub throwing 150 innings is worth ~10 WAR a season, basically the value of two aces.

Aren't you more likely to win two games out of two with two starters who give up three runs each, rather than with two starters who give up 1 run in one, and 5 in the other?  Do you swee what I'm getting at?  Am I missing the point?

This is where I run into issues with WAR, even as much as I like it as tool for individual player evaluations. I can't buy that even if Clayton Kershaw is guaranteed to pitch 34 games with a  0.00 ERA, and his team is guaranteed to go 34-0 in those starts, but he's paired with 4 replacement level starting pitchers, that the Dodgers are still going to end up out performing a team that just has 1 or 2 lesser aces and 3 decent back of the rotation options.

But The Dodgers don't have Kershaw and 4-replacement level starters.  The Dodgers have Kershaw and, at least, 4 average major league starters.

Kershaw is also not going to go 34-0 with a  0.00 ERA. It's possible I was exaggerating to make a point about the limits of WAR.

I just don't necessarily buy that this:

8 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR

is as good of a rotation as this:

5 WAR, 4 WAR, 3 WAR, 3 WAR, 1 WAR.

I'd pick the second group to win more games, I guess.

[Eli]

Aren't you more likely to win two games out of two with two starters who give up three runs each, rather than with two starters who give up 1 run in one, and 5 in the other?  Do you swee what I'm getting at?  Am I missing the point?

I don't actually know, but it's a good question. ChuckD is probably the only poster here who's qualified to tell us.

[Oleg]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

I think the point is that Kershaw doesn't throw 400 innings and still puts up 8 WAR a season. That means Kershaw + some replacement-level schlub throwing 150 innings is worth ~10 WAR a season, basically the value of two aces.

Aren't you more likely to win two games out of two with two starters who give up three runs each, rather than with two starters who give up 1 run in one, and 5 in the other?  Do you swee what I'm getting at?  Am I missing the point?

This is where I run into issues with WAR, even as much as I like it as tool for individual player evaluations. I can't buy that even if Clayton Kershaw is guaranteed to pitch 34 games with a  0.00 ERA, and his team is guaranteed to go 34-0 in those starts, but he's paired with 4 replacement level starting pitchers, that the Dodgers are still going to end up out performing a team that just has 1 or 2 lesser aces and 3 decent back of the rotation options.

But The Dodgers don't have Kershaw and 4-replacement level starters.  The Dodgers have Kershaw and, at least, 4 average major league starters.

Kershaw is also not going to go 34-0 with a  0.00 ERA. It's possible I was exaggerating to make a point about the limits of WAR.

I just don't necessarily buy that this:

8 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR

is as good of a rotation as this:

5 WAR, 4 WAR, 3 WAR, 3 WAR, 1 WAR.

I'd pick the second group to win more games, I guess.

I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers.  But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team).  Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.

[SKO]

I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers.  But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team).  Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.

The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.

[SKO]

I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers.  But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team).  Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.

The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.

DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.

[Oleg]

I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers.  But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team).  Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.

The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.

I'm not sure that's a fair question.  if you have two guys who are each giving up 2 runs per start, you have two guys with an ERA of around 2.00 (obviously).  So, you basically have 2 x Kershaw.

DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.

This makes much more sense, except I still think you or Tonker or all of us are undervaluing what "average MLB starter" really means.

[Oleg]

And, as a note, I, obviously, love commas and don't have the answer.  I think I just really enjoy discussions like this.  I don't even think there's a correct answer.  This is just fun.

[SKO]

I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers.  But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team).  Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.

The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.

I'm not sure that's a fair question.  if you have two guys who are each giving up 2 runs per start, you have two guys with an ERA of around 2.00 (obviously).  So, you basically have 2 x Kershaw.

DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.

This makes much more sense, except I still think you or Tonker or all of us are undervaluing what "average MLB starter" really means.

The specific ERA doesn't matter, whatever Kershaw does, knock 3 wins off of it, but give me two of them.

Super Ace Pitcher, or SAP, is worth 8 wins. But his team pays him 800 million dollars, and can only afford 4 2 WAR starters to back him up

So 8+2+2+2+2 vs a theoretical Cubs Rotation of Arrieta (5), Lester (4), Lackey (3), Hendricks (3), Hammel (1). 16 WAR vs 16 WAR, you gotta pick a rotation to roll with for the 2016 Cubs, and you can pick either of the above, which rotation are you picking?

[Tonker]

I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers.  But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team).  Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.

The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.

I'm not sure that's a fair question.  if you have two guys who are each giving up 2 runs per start, you have two guys with an ERA of around 2.00 (obviously).  So, you basically have 2 x Kershaw.

DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.

This makes much more sense, except I still think you or Tonker or all of us are undervaluing what "average MLB starter" really means.

The specific ERA doesn't matter, whatever Kershaw does, knock 3 wins off of it, but give me two of them.

Super Ace Pitcher, or SAP, is worth 8 wins. But his team pays him 800 million dollars, and can only afford 4 2 WAR starters to back him up

So 8+2+2+2+2 vs a theoretical Cubs Rotation of Arrieta (5), Lester (4), Lackey (3), Hendricks (3), Hammel (1). 16 WAR vs 16 WAR, you gotta pick a rotation to roll with for the 2016 Cubs, and you can pick either of the above, which rotation are you picking?

My gut tells me that much of the 8 WAR-starter's value will be wasted in non-close games, and you'll cough up more losses in close games from the rest of the rotation.  I have absolutely no scientific basis for my assertion, though.

[ChuckD]

Aren't you more likely to win two games out of two with two starters who give up three runs each, rather than with two starters who give up 1 run in one, and 5 in the other?  Do you swee what I'm getting at?  Am I missing the point?

I don't actually know, but it's a good question. ChuckD is probably the only poster here who's qualified to tell us.

I'm swamped so I don't have time right now to get in to the "why", but I pulled team win percentages in games where their starting pitcher gave up 1,2,3... ER dating back to the start of 2013.

Teams won ... of games with a SP who allowed ...

... 80.7% ... 0ER
... 67.5% ... 1ER
... 54.0% ... 2ER
... 40.3% ... 3ER
... 28.1% ... 4ER
... 18.0% ... 5ER
... 11.8% ... 6ER
...  8.8% ... 7ER
...  2.2% ... 8ER
...  0.0% ... 9ER+

So you could add those win probabilities up to see who has the higher sum of expected wins across the two games.

1/5 = .855
3/3 = .805

The 1/5 combo is better ... marginally. But that's because allowing 5ER in a start is really bad. Starters averaged ~5.2 IP per start over that stretch, so 5 ER allowed translates to a 7.64 ERA.

There's more to it though. Run support would obviously be the biggest one. A 5 ER allowed start would be crushing for an anemic offense like the Phillies (scored 6+ just 34 times last season), Braves (35), or Reds (34).

The Blue Jays scored 6+ 70 times (league avg was 46), so they're obviously better equipped win games with a borderline replacement starter on the mound.

[Oleg]

I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers.  But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team).  Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.

The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.

I'm not sure that's a fair question.  if you have two guys who are each giving up 2 runs per start, you have two guys with an ERA of around 2.00 (obviously).  So, you basically have 2 x Kershaw.

DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.

This makes much more sense, except I still think you or Tonker or all of us are undervaluing what "average MLB starter" really means.

The specific ERA doesn't matter, whatever Kershaw does, knock 3 wins off of it, but give me two of them.

Super Ace Pitcher, or SAP, is worth 8 wins. But his team pays him 800 million dollars, and can only afford 4 2 WAR starters to back him up

So 8+2+2+2+2 vs a theoretical Cubs Rotation of Arrieta (5), Lester (4), Lackey (3), Hendricks (3), Hammel (1). 16 WAR vs 16 WAR, you gotta pick a rotation to roll with for the 2016 Cubs, and you can pick either of the above, which rotation are you picking?

My gut tells me that much of the 8 WAR-starter's value will be wasted in non-close games, and you'll cough up more losses in close games from the rest of the rotation.  I have absolutely no scientific basis for my assertion, though.

Thanks, Hawk Harrelson.

But, let's look at it this way...if you have Kershaw and 4 average starters, you'll win about 60% of your games, theoretically.  Meaning, you'll be throwing out a better starter than your opponent at least 3 out of every 5 starts (Kershaw plus 2 x Average Dudes who pitch against the other teams two less-than-average dudes).

To SKO's question, you're asking me to pick between two of the three best rotations in the NL.  I'd take my chances with either one.

[CBStew]

Matt Szczur couldn't spell his name on a Scrabble board.

[Quality Start Machine]

The bullpen's pretty good too.

[R-V]

Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/