Dale Sveum decided to go with Ryan Dempster on opening day. There's little doubt that Matt Garza is the superior pitcher, but Dempster is still pretty good himself and it's not like Garza is awesome unless we look only at last season. Even if we do that, he only looks awesome when we look at his defense independent pitching stats. His fWAR (based on FIP) is 5.0, but his rWAR is 2.9. It was 2.0 the year before than prior ot that it was 3.8 and 3.0. Dempster's non DIPS WAR is pretty bad so there's no doubt that Garza had the better season.
However, this is a decision I just can't care too much about. Being the opening day starter is only meaningful to the one player per team who is chosen to start opening day. It doesn't mean anything to anyone else. It's an honor for those guys selected and in the end, Dempster and Garza are going to make the same number of starts if they both stay healthy. Plus, I wasn't the least bit upset that Carlos Zambrano was chosen over Dempster in 2009 and 2010. It just doesn't matter.
If you take away April last year for Dempster what he did the rest of the way is right in line with what we projected him to do. I know using selective endpoints is silly, but it's The Cubs Way these days. Dempster was also better in both May and June (using ERA). Both pitchers threw poorly the first month so by the end of June we could have selectively decided that Dempster had been the better pitcher. That's ridiculous, but It's a whole new world in interpreting stats so I'm just learning.
I also think the true talent level of these two pitchers isn't all that different. Garza's is surely better, but it's not like he's a run per 9 better. Probably not even half a run. Wouldn't even surprise me if it's more like a quarter run per 9. This decision is nothing compared to other troubling decisions Dale Sveum has made. This doesn't even touch on the absurdly high number of outs on the bases this team has gotten into so far this spring.
I'm kind of glad I started this post in the morning and didn't get back to until the evening because Suburban Kid had a really good comment in the last thread that I'm going to include here.
I was hoping Dempster got the opening day start. I think it should go to veteran if possible as an honorary mark of respect type deal, especially if he’s a leader type.
I think the protocol should be that if the longest standing member of the team in the rotation should get opening day if he is the first or second best SP on the team. If he’s the third best and the first two aren’t very good anyway, then I’d even give it to him then. Another situation could call for a league veteran getting the ball even if he is new to the team – if the other members of the rotation aren’t any great shakes.
If there’s a young SP who is miles ahead of the others (like a Strasburg), then fine, give him the ball.
Garza may be the best, but he’s not a million miles better than Dempster. He’s only been on the team a year (and what an unmemorable Cub year), while this is the funnyman’s ninth season as a Cub. I’ve also never felt like Garza was going to be a Cub for very long, and I still feel that way, so why make a fuss over him.
I’m actually sick of Dempster as a personality and as a Cub, but I give him his due here. He deserves the honor.
I guess I tend to feel the same way, which is why I was so pleased to see Zambrano get the ball on Opening Day in 2009 and 2010 even though he wasn't the best starting pitcher on the team.
I don't think there was ever any doubt that the Cubs top prospect Brett Jackson would be sent to Iowa to begin the year. That assignment was confirmed a few days ago. I understand why they're doing it. If they wait to call him up until May they get the additional year of service time. If they wait until sometime in mid June they'll avoid having Jackson qualify for 4 years of arbitration. I get it, but I also hate it. I hated it when the Rays did it and I hate it even more that a large market team like the Cubs is doing it.
If Jackson was only arguably one of the 3 best outfielders, no big deal, but it's not arguable. He's easily one of the best 3 and almost certainly the best outfielder in the Cubs organization. Not only that, he's quite possibly the best player in the Cubs organization right now.
Other than Jackson, the only player in the minor leagues who also might provide some immediate value to the Cubs is Anthony Rizzo, but at least with Rizzo you can at least argue that he might not be the best player at his position. On fangraphs, the fans have projected LaHair to have a .344 wOBA to Rizzo's .335. Over the next 5 years there's no contest in terms of potential, but right now LaHair is probably the better player.
This argument can't be made for Jackson. Alfonso Soriano isn't even close to as good as Jackson. Neither are David DeJesus and Marlon Byrd.
The decision was made for a reason and although I'm not sure I agree with it, there's at least a valid explanation. I'd prefer the Cubs not act like a small market team. If the player is ready and deserving then give him the job.
Comments
So…. you think Brett Jackson is better than Starlin Castro and Matt Garza?
Jackson needs more time at AAA. He still has significant issues with making contact.
DavidQuote Reply
David wrote:
I said…
I think Garza is the best player on the team and it’s a toss up between Jackson and Castro. Since Castro has proven himself you give him the edge, but Jackson’s 20+ home run power and quality defense gives him more immediate potential than Castro.
He’s always going to have trouble making contact. He works deep counts so he sees lots of 2 strike counts. Take that way and you’ve got a guy who gets on base a lot less frequently.
mb21Quote Reply
It strikes me as hyperbolic to say that DeJesus and Byrd aren’t close to Jackson. Their wOBA projections are all quite similar, and I don’t think BJax has a huge lead in defensive value.
ACTQuote Reply
ACT is probably right, but my feeling is that I’d rather see what BJax can do than DeJesus. But there it is. You can’t dump a guy you just signed. That’s kind of ludicrous. The team is what it is.
joshQuote Reply
At this point, I’d be fine with them starting Gregg Maddux on opening day as a publicity stunt. I just want to get on with it.
joshQuote Reply
Maddux is probably better than Moyer at this point. Or he would be if he kept in playing shape. He was a perfectly adequate pitcher when he retired.
ACTQuote Reply
ACT wrote:
Maybe it is for Byrd, but Jackson is much better than DeJesus once you factor position into it. We’re going to set up polls for players right before the season for people to vote on whether a player beats his projection or underperforms. If Jackson got 500 PA there’s no player on this team I’m more confident would beat his projection.
mb21Quote Reply
@ josh:
You can dump a guy making $18 million and providing little to no value.
mb21Quote Reply
Dale Sveum is scary:
Someone needs to explain sample size to him and they need to do it immediately.
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
I think they were mulling that until they realized that nobody on the team besides Soto had anything resembling “power”. They still could release him but I doubt that will happen. Even with sunk costs being what they are you still need somebody to clear the fences here and there.
I think even a big market team has to look at the bottom line though. When your team is projected to suck anyway I think you might as well take a long shot on a guy who may or may not have turned a corner (Samardzija) and you trade a couple months for an extra year of prime production at controlled costs. I think it’d be different if this team were an actual contender, then they’d be spending like the Yankees and Red Sox and there’s no fucking way they continue the F7 experiment.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
On Lendy Castillo: “He’s done as well as anybody in camp,” Cubs manager Dale Sveum said of the right-hander. “He’s showed a lot of poise.”
I’m pretty sure he’s walked more than a batter per inning so if he’s done as well as anybody this team won’t win 40 games.
mb21Quote Reply
I’m probably rationalizing again, but maybe Sveum has to try to play up everybody because he (and his bosses) know that just about every player in the organization is trade fodder. It’s more fun to think about than the alternative, i.e. Sveum is retarded.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
That’s part of it. He’s just saying nice things about Castillo, but I’m not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now. I just think it’s funny he said that. It’s definitely not uncommon, but it fits with my Sveum is fucking nuts meme today.
mb21Quote Reply
Have you thrown the Sveum Projected Roster (TM) into your fancy spreadsheets to see how much better/worse it would perform relative to the projections for the 2012 Cubs if only the “best” players made the roster?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Cubs GM Jed Hoyer told ESPN’s Jim Bowden that he wants to sign Matt Garza long-term and build around the right-hander rather than trade him (Twitter link).
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I haven’t because I figure F7 will be back in the bullpen before too long. If it lasts all season then it probably won’t cost the Cubs anything because that would assume F7 has done well enough to stick around. If it goes as expected and Wells takes over for him sometime in May then it probably only costs them a win. Basically, 5 to 6 starts is the equivalent of putting the worst imaginable 1-8 lineup for 162 games. It’s like Koyie HIll leading off, followed by Tyler Colvin, Darwin Barney and Reed Johnson vs righties.
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
Soriano’s value is homeruns. They’re afraid to dump him because they don’t want to have a completely powerless team. All I can say is, I’m glad I’m not Jed Hoyer or Theo Epstein. Although, I probably wouldn’t have hired Dale Sveum, but then again, I think bugs are cool, so I’m probably an idiot.
joshQuote Reply
@ mb21:
Rocket scientists, insofar as the term even means anything anymore, aren’t always very good at statistics. Calculus, yes. It depends. The engineers on the rocket science teams are probably better at it than the physicists and astrophysicists.
joshQuote Reply
Wiitenmyer is basically saying here that decisions can ride on a single outing.
Then he follows that up with the fact that Wells hasn’t allowed a run all Spring but is a lock for the bullpen.
Team politics + trade market + PR + hillbilly baseball men + desperate beat writers = nonsense. The rotation might be pretty similar to what Sveum is indicating now, but the reasons for each decision are not going to be based on guys’ latest start or two.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Like, this Wells stuff seems to be all about teaching the bad boy a lesson. Amirong?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
New post http://obstructedview.net/projections/projecting-the-2012-cubs-randy-wells.html
BerseliusQuote Reply