Good Idea/Bad Idea: The Great Closer Debate

Yep, two in a day.  I'm on fire!  And if I were, I'd have to call a Fireman.  And in baseball, the term "Fireman" refers to a closer, or a shut down reliever.  Are there any on the ballot for this year?  You betcha! Let's take a look at the controversial idea of Lee Arthur Smith being in the Hall of Fame.

Most of the decision about Lee Arthur has centered around what most people consider to be how to judge relief pitchers.  Currently in the Hall of Fame, there are  5.  Hoyt Wilhelm, Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley and Goose Gossage.  All of them probably deserve to be inducted.  The question people have is does Lee Arthur belong in that group?  A lot of it also comes down to how we plan to use the save stat.  As I've opined on here before, it is a terrible stat.  And Lee Smith led the world in saves until Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera came along and blew his number out of the water.  So how does the argument shake out for and against Lee Arthur?

Good Idea: The fact is that saves are a bad stat and it is very easy to accumulate them over the course of a long career.  But Lee Arthur was a great reliever.  He has a higher K/9 than any other reliever in Cooperstown and the best HR/9 as well.  It's tough to do a full comp on him with other relievers in the hall because there are only the five of them and the RP position has evolved greatly in recent times.  While saves may not be a great stat, he did gain almost 500 which was the most for a long time.  He was a great reliever that shut down offenses.

Bad Idea: He struck out a lot of batters, true, but he also had the fewest innings when compared to the HoF relievers except for Sutter, fewer strikeouts too.  He also walked a lot of guys and had a mediocre WHIP, almost 1.3.  In fact, he never had a season where his WHIP was below 1.1, which means that teams had a lot of opportunities to score against him.  It's a testament that he was able to even get all those saves with the baserunners he was allowing, but the fact remains that he was allowing them at a fairly high clip.  Good reliever, worthy to be part of a good team's pen, but not Hall of Fame worthy.

Verdict: It's hard to do a calculation for relievers because there aren't that many in the Hall of Fame.  But, for what it's worth, his score came to 126, which was 2nd best for a reliever to Eckersley.  I don't know what has kept him out, if it's just that stuff I was talking about at the top about closers and relievers and how effective they are, etc.  I would put him in, especially since it tells the story of how relievers have evolved over the years.  Think about it, the best reliever of the pre-closer era was Wilhelm, and then we had guys like Fingers and Sutter and Gossage give way to guys like Eck and Smith, which led to guys like Billy Wagner, Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera to be great closers.  And it isn't like he is an indefensible choice, like some people currently in the Hall are.  He's a good choice and should be inducted.

Good Idea Bad Idea-Sammy Sosa Edition

Well, with one half of the HR Derby of 98 looked at, lets look at Smiling Sammy.

Most of you (like the one person who read my McGwire post) probably think that I hate Sosa, because he battled Mac for the HR record.  Well, while I'm not the biggest fan of his, I certainly don't hate him.  I'm more indifferent towards him.  I thought he was a good player, and certainly would be good in a lineup with Mac.  I did think his whole smiling act seemed phony, but thought it was good for the game.  He definitely should NOT have been the MVP of the league in 98, but the writers are dumb when it comes to MVP voting sometimes (Morneau, Mo Vaughn, Anytime a closer has been voted, Maury Wills, etc).  Anyway, here is my schizophrenic view of whether Sosa should or should not be inducted into the HoF.

Good Idea: Sammy, of course, is one of 7 now to have over 600 HR in his career.  He was also one of the most dominant HR hitters of all time from 98-02.  I don't think people realize that he was still pretty good in years before 98, where he was usually a 30-40 HR hitter, and in his younger years was a really good fielder. He carried a 370 career wOBA and a career 123 wRC+, both really good numbers that might indicate how offensive the environment was during the 90s.  And, for a power hitter, he carried a good number of total hits (2400+, Mac wasn't even close to that).  He was a premier player during his era and should be recognized as such.

Bad Idea: Disregarding steroids, Sosa was an OK ball player.  People think Mac was a free swinger, yet his OBP was 50 points higher than Sosa's, and his wOBA was 45 points higher.  That's a huge difference, and those that want to compare the two, you can't.  Sosa struck out more often (23% of the time) than Mac, which I know doesn't mean much, but also walked much much less frequently than Mac did (17% for Mac, 9% for Sosa).  What does that mean?  It means that Sosa was much more of a free swinger than Mac was.  So I don't see the comparison between the two.

Looking at it from a not Big Mac perspective, his 123 wRC+ is good, but for the best HoF RF. it's well below their average of 141.  His wOBA is good, but a typical HoF RF will have one of 399.  His career OPS is 878, which is like Ryan Ludwick's last year, and that's close to the OPS for a HOF RF, but it's inflated due to his high slugging and terrible OBP.  Are you starting to see what I'm getting at here?  He was a good player that played for a long time, and did one thing really well (Hit flat footed HR in Wrigley), but not good enough.  Sorry, he's out.

Verdict: I am kinda shocked at how well he scored, but I guess he does comp well with the guy he tied.  He scored as high as Reggie Jackson, who is someone I think is Sosa's best comparison. Both were free swingers, both really only hit HR and didn't provide much else on offense.  Sosa had a bit more power, Reggie could work counts better.  So, if you disregard steroids with Sammy, and see my point on steroids with Mac in my previous article, and you think Reggie is a HoF hitter, then you'd have to agree with Sosa.

Matt Garza: What's He Really Worth?

Analyzing Matt Garza’s value as a pitcher is rather easy, He’s very reliable, probably not an ace but a respectable 2 or 3 in the NL and a solid 3 in most AL clubs. He’s an innings eater who has proved successful in both leagues and in tough divisions. Garza’s trade value has been hit twofold over the past month. His triceps issue, which is now being called a stress reaction in his pitching elbow, that made him nigh untradeable at the deadline impacted value for obvious reasons, but also because of that he will be a 1 year rental if traded in the offseason. If Garza goes unclaimed on waivers and is eligible for a late season trade this year, that’s a different situation all together. I will be forthright and say it, no matter how much they talk about Garza staying in Chicago I can’t imagine it. I can’t see him wanting to sign a 3+ year contract, especially just going into his prime years, with one of the worst teams in baseball. Garza’s true value to the Cubs has to be, without a doubt, in being traded for controllable assets. Resigning Garza would take an overpay that Cubs brass is all too familiar with (Still loving that Carlos Zambrano deal I’m sure).

Garza is a very solid pitcher, and even on a 1 year contract could be the difference for a team with a shaky rotation. Of course being in the last year of arbitration will make it a bit trickier for any pursuing team to negotiate long term with Garza. That said, it can certainly be done, they’d have a whole year to work out a deal assuming Garza wanted to stay there and was content to avoid free agency. The reality that Garza may not play again until next season will certainly put a hitch in any trade talks the Cubs may have between now and then, sure a team may be willing to gamble on Garza, but will they really be willing to pay full price for potentially damaged goods? So there are really only 2 options for Jed Hoyer and Theo Epstein.

Their best hope is that Garza is able to return before the end of the season and give him a chance to showcase his talents again before spring training. This would be ideal for Chicago, he would be the entire veteran presence in their rotation, and could help some of their young pitchers  round into form on their currently rather accelerated schedules. The Cubbies would also have the most flexibility in how/when to deal Garza, if they don’t like any of the offseason offers, they will wait until someone’s desperate. This could likely net the Cubs a few legitimately interesting prospects, though obviously with Garza’s salary likely in excess of $10 million after this season, interest in him may be hurt by the free agent market, if teams look at him as a one year rental, they may see equally effective options available on one and 2 year contracts at similar/lower costs. (Hiroki Kuroda would be a great example for this year). His fate will be decided by where pitchers like Ervin Santana, Edwin Jackson, Ryan Dempster, and (to a lesser extent) Erik Bedard land, and how much they’re being paid. Now, most of these pitchers are older than Garza, and at least half of them will be seeking multi year deals but the strongest suitors for Garza will undoubtedly be teams that miss out on the above mentioned free agents and are willing to part with some organizational depth to stay in the playoff hunt. Just about every team in playoff contention right now sans maybe the Washington Nationals, Tampa Bay Rays, and the LA Angels. More likely than not the Cubbies will be able to get a fair haul for their current ace. Obviously the injury will factor in somewhat in any offer that the Cubs receive, but there’s still a respectable number of potential suitors, and if Hoyer and Epstein play their cards right, someone is sure to overpay for a year of Garza.

Of course, the arm could remain a nagging issue throughout the rest of the regular season. This would leave the Cubs with looking at a mid-season trade to get any real return on Garza. There is the possibility that they could make him a qualifying offer, but that doesn’t get them any closer to competing if he leaves and if it gets that far, he may be willing to take the 1 year contract to further build his value at 29 and still reach free agency before he’s 30. Given that he’d be a pure rental, the return would surely be lesser than it could have been this year, regardless of what his health status is at the trade deadline. He will still potentially net the Cubs a single top 5 (within a given organization) prospect but not nearly what he was worth to most clubs at the deadline this year.

Overall the return for Garza is tied to both his health and performance, he will with near certainty be traded by next year’s deadline, whether Theo & Co. are able to get a significant haul however remains to be seen. Many teams are moving to valuing their farms more now than in the recent past which will clearly work against the Cubs, but given the ever present need for good pitching in a pennant race, I think Garza will net the Cubs a pair of prospects, probably one farther along in his development but with a lower ceiling, or whose development has stalled a bit, and a high ceiling player in A ball, maybe ready to be moved to AA.

Chicago Cubs: Can Mediocrity Make a Difference?

The Chicago Cubs are not playoff contenders, they are not playoff hopefuls, they are barely a team of note in the National League right now. In all honesty the most noteworthy thing that may occur this season is the announcement that Kerry Wood has officially called it a career. Whether the Cubbies decide to go into an all out rebuilding phase and trade away everything that isn’t physically attached to Wrigley Field or they decide to sit on their roster and see what the offseason and the draft have in store for them, they’re bad, and not getting better immediately.

Randy Wells isn’t necessarily going to be starting much for the Cubbies this season after two unimpressive outings got him sent back to AAA for some work, but while he’s voiced his displeasure with being sent back down after 3 years with the big league club his walk rate was climbing slowly all the time, and (small sample size warning) was ridiculously bad before he was sent back down to try to work that one out. Wells’ past shows he has the ability to be a reasonably effective groundball pitcher, though he’s gotten away from that over the past year and change, and after only 2 starts while issuing more walks and hits than innings pitched, the decision was made. Wells will likely be better for the demotion, your position on a major league roster most certainly is earned whether you’re trying to break in with the best team in the league or you’re playing for a perennial cellar dweller.

Paul Maholm opened the season by attempting to make the Cubs look stupid for signing him giving up 3 homers and 12 runs over his first 2 starts totalling 8 innings. Since then Maholm has been making up for those two starts and over his last 5 starts has given up 7 runs over 31 & ⅓ innings to provide his team with a 2.01 ERA over that period. Maholm is a groundball pitcher who in the early going has taken it to the extreme, and in limiting line drives to an impossibly low 9%, Maholm is looking great (especially after those first 2 starts are omitted). Maholm *will not* keep his line drive percentage that low, and with that his BABIP will probably come back up closer to the .290 he saw last year from the .233 he’s seeing now. His infield flyball ratio will probably come back down to earth too, but if he can continue keeping batters on top of pitches his ERA will come down and his WHIP may stay manageable, though likely not at the current 1.169 he’s enjoying now.

Chris Volstad is all of the return that Chicago got for their former ace/resident headcase Carlos Zambrano and eating most of his contract. Volstad has so far looked like absolute garbage, He so far has managed 1 quality start. That quality start wasn’t even truly earned,  courtesy of an error or so he only gave up 3 earned runs. Volstad is of course a very tall pitcher, which makes his mechanics that much harder to handle on both ends. Volstad is a near even groundball/flyball pitcher so his BABIP at .331 (over his career mark of .303) is a bit high, and if he can start to more effectively keep batters on top of pitches could come down in a hurry, but overall he’s living on contact, which you can’t do if you’re also putting men on base for free. Volstad has walked 15 so far over his 41 innings, but has only struck out 24. I wouldn’t exactly say this inspires much confidence in his control or his overall repertoire. Overall Volstad is looking like a steep price to have paid to move Zambrano.

Ryan Dempster is looking to rebound after a miserable year last year posting an ERA+ of 80 with a 4.80 ERA, he’s come out of the gate strong with a 2.28 ERA  and a career low walk rate (2.7 per 9) while maintaining the strikeout momentum (perhaps the only positive) from last season. Dempster is putting together a bit less of a show over his past 2 starts, giving up a combined 8 runs over 12 innings, but plenty of pitchers hit little slumps here and there so I wouldn’t let that kill an otherwise stellar start to this year.  I’d be concerned that Dempster’s BABIP is so very far below his lifetime numbers (.264 vs a career .307) especially coupled with a 24% line drive rate. He’s literally giving up 1 streak shot for every 4 at bats that end in a ball in play. These will balance out to being more shots into gaps and into the seats as the year goes on. Something has to give when there are disparities like that, you can’t give up liners directly at fielders all year, and if you’re giving them up with that kind of frequency, they’ll start to burn you. Dempster will all but have to regress some or make some serious adjustments to continue to build on a strong start.

Jeff Samardzija is giving the Cubs a lot of reason to believe in the reliever turned starter concept. So far Samardzija has provided the cubbies with 51 innings this season where his stats are actually better than last year’s 88 relief innings. So far as a starter he has managed to keep opposing batters on the ground about ½ of the time and when the ball is lifted, it’s not really being driven with only a 14% line drive rate so far. Couple that with his 25.5% strikeout rate and less than 8% walk rate, the Shark is looking pretty good as a member of a rotation in desperate need of building blocks for the future. I would be somewhat surprised to see his numbers looking this good at the end of the year, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen, it just seems like he’s due for a little regression, but by no means do I expect him to suddenly become a bad pitcher, he has been able to do all the right things so far it’s just a matter of how the league adjusts, and how he adjusts back.

Matt Garza is perhaps the most valuable player the Cubs have at the moment. He is in the midst of his 6th consecutive season at or above league average Garza’s BABIP is probably a big part of his success this season sitting at .248 while his career mark is a .290 (still better than the league) He’s letting opposing batters put the ball in the air a little more than ½ of the time, but has been able to keep line drives in check (17% of all balls in play so far) and with his 8+ strikeouts per 9 he looks to continue his above average pitching through the season, even as his BABIP adjusts. I would be surprised to see Garza keep up this pace, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see him continuing to be a dominant pitcher for the Cubs and a potential trade candidate to help bolster the starting 5 for a contender for a season and ½.

The Cubs are registering as slightly more than a sad joke this season, having a better record (15-26) than the Minnesota Twins (14-27 as of this writing) and are overall just an underwhelming club despite Garza and Samardzija’s strong and potentially consistent contributions. This is the type of team that could legitimately make a better run at post season by starting fresh a la Major League.