That revamped Cubs rotation

In Commentary And Analysis by dmick8996 Comments

Much has been written here in the last few days about the Cubs rotation injuries and what it means for the overall strength of the rotation. Most, or actually all of that has been negative. Sure, losing Garza can't be spun as a positive so I'm not going to do that.

As the resident optimist, I am here to assure you that the Cubs rotation is still better than last year and better by a wide margin compared to the rotation the Cubs ended the season with (Garzaless, Dempsterless and Samardzijaless).

The first thing we have to do as fans when trying to compare a rotation right now to a rotation from a previous season is to compare apples to apples. We want to compare this rotation to, for the purposes of this post, to last year's rotation by comparing the strength of each prior to the start of the season. Come July we can compare how the groups have performed, but right now, we have to compare pre-season to pre-season.

For last year's rotation, I'm only going to say two words: Jeff Samardzija.

I can't just say two words because, like Boyd Crowder, it takes me 40 words when 4 will do. See how I've already turned those two words into a bunch of crap? I'm good at that.

When the Cubs announced that Jeff Samardzija would be in last year's rotation it was maddening, funny and everything in between. He was the worst possible starting pitcher on the roster based on what we knew at this point a year ago. Clearly the Cubs knew something we didn't and good for them, but we didn't know that and anybody who wants to say that 40 innings of decent work in the bullpen in 2011 predicted the kind of season he had last year is full of it.

Ryan Dempster was the opening day starter last year. He was followed by Matt Garza, Jeff Samardzija (not only did he make the roster, but he was the number 3 starter!), Chris Volstad and Paul Maholm. Based on their previous years, I think most people expected little to nothing from Samardzija and Volstad. Most of us figured Travis Wood would come up soon enough to replace one of them. He did. Volstad kind of sucked and went to the minors.

Using the OV projected playing time for 2012, the 5 members of the rotation were projected to be worth 7.9 WAR. The most recent CAIRO projections for the projected starting 5 this season is 7.8 WAR. Those 5 are Edwin Jackson (3.2), Matt Garza (2.4), Jeff Samardzija (1.6), Scott Feldman (1.2) and Scott Baker (0.4).

Our OV projected playing times for those 5 last year was 873 innings, CAIRO, due to recent injuries to some of these pitchers, is only projecting 607 innings. The projections are based on the last few years and, take Jeff Samardzija for example, he was a reliever prior to 2012 so he's only projected to throw 135 innings. Scott Baker is projected to throw only 30 innings.

Adjust those innings upwards and the rotation we expected this season is better than last year's. It's not a great rotation, but CAIRO and PECOTA have Samardzija projected much lower than a couple of the others.

Scott Baker has recorded an out this spring before having to undergo another MRI. Matt Garza is battling an injury and will miss at least the first monty of the season. The rotation is shaping up to be Samardzija, Jackson, Feldman, Travis Wood and Carlos Villanueva. Samardzija, Jackson and Feldman are projected by CAIRO to be worth 6 WAR.

The CAIRO for Travis Wood is 1.9 WAR and it's 1.0 WAR for Villanueva. So the expected Cubs rotation is projected to be worth 8.9 WAR, which is better than last year's rotation to begin the season.

Even if the Cubs lose another pitcher or two to the DL, they're likely to be better than they were at the end of the season. Guys like Chris Rusin, Brooks Raley and others can't be expected to be nearly as bad as they were. Even a guy like Josh Vitters would improve upon his season last year because you can't do anything but improve.

Share this Post

Comments

  1. GW

    I have thread confusion. B’s is on top, but this is active?

    Anyways, Bill James also thinks that ground ball pitchers are more injury prone, which I find interesting coming from a guy who has been watching baseball as analytically as long as he has.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. Author
    dmick89

    GW wrote:

    I have thread confusion. B’s is on top, but this is active?

    This is the active one. I posted mine about 20 seconds after Myles posted his last night and then unpublished it so it still had the timestamp from last night.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. Author
    dmick89

    GW wrote:

    Anyways, Bill James also thinks that ground ball pitchers are more injury prone, which I find interesting coming from a guy who has been watching baseball as analytically as long as he has.

    That was what I thought was most interesting. I’m skeptical of whether or not they’re worse pitchers, but I’m not as skeptical of the anecdotal evidence that they are injured for more frequently.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. Author
    dmick89

    It’s also not something that’s a new argument for James. This is from the article:

    I posted a rant like this in August, 2010, to which Tango replied “does this mean that you would expect Adam Wainwright to not age as gracefully as other great pitchers?” Months later, Adam Wainwright had Tommy John surgery. He returned last year, went 14-13 with a league-average ERA.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. GW

    @ dmick89:

    not that i can tell, really.

    gb:
    lester
    buchholz
    aaron cook
    julian tavarez
    masterson (extreme gb, traded early-on)
    melancon (traded for)
    bard (sort of)
    brad penny (ditto)
    matt clement

    average-ish:
    beckett
    lackey
    doubront
    dempster (though he used to be much more gb oriented)
    andrew miller
    curt schilling (leans toward the fb-side)

    fb-leaning:
    andrew bailey
    papelbon
    daisuke
    aceves

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. Suburban kid

    @ SVB:
    Nah, I’ll need to read your comments for a few more years before I can predict your avatar choices. I thought you’d go with some sort of gaucho.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. Myles

    Rice Cube wrote:

    Ronny Cedeno —> Astros

    Good move for them, the Astros are a replacement-level team so Cedeno is probably the average player on that squad.

    Cubs > Angels’ backup team

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Berselius

    One of the rare occasions where I’m glad to see Kaplan carrying water for the Cubs

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Suburban kid

    About to do my fake team draft and I note that Yahoo has ranked Josh Vitters at 1,139. I’m surprised he’s that high.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. Edwin

    I just saw the thread from yesterday, I hope it’s ok to post late.

    I always thought that GB% was more important according to the individual pitcher, as opposed to just looking at GB% by itself. Or at least, I don’t think that it’s bad to be a fly ball pitcher, as long as you can generate above average K% and have a good BB%. If a pitcher struggles with control, or can’t generate K’s, maybe it’s more valuable/important for that pitcher to have a higher GB%?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. Edwin

    josh wrote:

    I once heard that Josh Vitters likes to shit in old people’s mouths while they are sleeping.

    He’s probably terrible at it too.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. Author
    dmick89

    Edwin wrote:

    I always thought that GB% was more important according to the individual pitcher, as opposed to just looking at GB% by itself. Or at least, I don’t think that it’s bad to be a fly ball pitcher, as long as you can generate above average K% and have a good BB%. If a pitcher struggles with control, or can’t generate K’s, maybe it’s more valuable/important for that pitcher to have a higher GB%?

    Yes, I tend to think whether or not GB pitchers are more valuable is kind of an irrelevant topic. I know Theo has said he would like ground ball pitchers (told Posnanski recently), but I would also assume Theo wants guys who can strike batters out and walk as few as possible. In the end, that’s going to determine success more than GB or FB tendencies will.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. SVB

    I’m pretty sure that Vitters will make it back up to the bigs this season and he’ll be far better than last year. You guys should lay off. He’s this year’s F7 transformation. In fact, he’s changing his name to Vitzerbrincicncs. (Too bad Harry and Ron aren’t around to pronounce that!)

    @ dmick89:
    I figured it out.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. Edwin

    @ Rice Cube:

    I’m just saying, he’s no better than replacement level (possibly even worse) at shitting in old people’s mouths. He had a lot of promise coming out of the draft. People were hailing him as the next Moises Alou, but so far I’ve yet to hear about any real tangible results. If he hasn’t done it by now, he probably never will. Man, prospects just always go on to break your heart.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Ryno

    Clearly the Cubs knew something we didn’t and good for them

    They knew to listen to me. That’s why they’re so successful.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. WaLi

    @ mikeakaleroy:
    Guess I didn’t realize there would have been a move up of 3 teams and that of all the teams that lost a free agent, they all had a worse record than the Cardinals.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. Berselius

    (dying laughing), all the Brewers people I follow on twitter are livid about this signing. With two wild cards out there now, moving from 82 to 84 wins is a nontrivial jump.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. WenningtonsGorillaCock

    dmick89 wrote:

    I think Benadryl should figure out a bigger pain in the ass way to open those fucking pills. Jesus

    MB —–> Larry King

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. Myles

    Berselius wrote:

    (dying laughing), all the Brewers people I follow on twitter are livid about this signing. With two wild cards out there now, moving from 82 to 84 wins is a nontrivial jump.

    I think the issue is that they are paying Lohse 3/33 (giving up a first-round pick) to replace Shaun Marcum, who signed for much cheaper and much shorter. Of course, the problem with that is that the market is a moving target (you can only sign the players available when they are available), so that comparison only works if Marcum was available at the time Lohse was signed (not to mention Marcum is a recent injury concern).

    If the Brewers think they have a shot at a WC spot this year, then I don’t see a huge deal with them making this signing; however, I don’t think they have a good shot, so it’s a poor move. I think it’s a move from 77 to 79, not 82 to 84.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  20. Myles

    Berselius wrote:

    @ Myles:
    I just checked BPro’s projected standings, and they have the Cubs and Brewers tied for last in the NLC at 78 wins. Um.

    So what you’re saying is that the Cubs should have signed Lohse? Come on, Theo

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. JonKneeV

    So I’ve searched the last 5 days of posts and I can’t find the beginning of the cowboy hat meme… so no participation from me!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. WaLi

    @ JonKneeV:
    I think there is going to be an OV Convention where we are going to watch Brokeback Mountain. You are only invited if you change your avatar to a person wearing a cowboy hat.

    At least that is what I was promised by SK.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. Author
    dmick89

    @ SVB:
    SK started reading my old Cubs blog back in (2006 I think). He didn’t even believe it when I said I was closing ACB down and starting a new blog with a few others.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment