Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 41 of 112 FirstFirst ... 3139404142435191 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 615 of 1680
  1. #601
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    What I think is ridiculous is that people feel like they should just be able to say anything they want without me asking them to elaborate or justify what they're saying.

    Anyone can say and believe anything, but why is it such an insult for me to show evidence to the contrary? I'm not trying to shut anyone down, just have a discussion. If you think the evidence I'm presenting is wrong, tell me how it's wrong.

    If I ask you to present a basis for what you're saying and you can't or don't want to, just say it. It's perfectly fine to feel something, but just present it that way instead of something that's just as valid as a statement made with evidence.
    OK bibbs, well lets try this then. In 2016 on the road Chatwood had an ERA of 1.69 with a whip of 1.13. In 17' he had a road ERA of 3.49 with a whip of 1.228. Those are the last 2 years before he signed with the Cubs. I am using the road, because Coors Field is a disaster for pitchers. I am sure those stats were also used by the Cubs when deciding on signing him. That along with his above average velocity and spin rate, I am sure went into their idea he might be good. So, as many pitchers do when they come to the Cubs, he has a terrible 2018. Which brings us to 2019, where he was decent. So now we are in 2020. Is it better for him to have a good spring and have people thinking that maybe he can be the guy the Cubs thought he would be in 2018, or have a terrible spring and everyone including Ross, decide he is useless and relegate him to the pen? If you want to know why I am encouraged, it is because the Cubs obviously saw something from him when they signed him. And so far, I know, in a small sample size, he has been very impressive this spring. With the fact that he has been good previously, it is encouraging early to see what he is doing now.

    I get you do not have to agree. But that is why I am encouraged. Again, not looking for an ace. Honestly, if he can be a solid #5 starter that is fine. But the optimistic side of me goes to a possible MOR sort of guy if he can duplicate what he did in 16' and 17' on the road.

  2. #602
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    27,252
    I should maybe point out here I'm not saying that believing in a flat earth is not the same claim as believing Chatwood has some upside to him, or that he could randomly break out at any time.

    To be perfectly clear, the comment is not an insult on anyone's intelligence for liking Tyler Chatwood. I was being hyperbolic to make a point about how evidence based claims are better than non-evidence based claims. The evidence doesn't suggest Chatwood has made any kind of career tilt, and obviously there's also no evidence to support a flat earth. People are due the respect to believe both anyway, but it doesn't mean the claims should all be equally respected.

  3. #603
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    55,543
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    OK bibbs, well lets try this then. In 2016 on the road Chatwood had an ERA of 1.69 with a whip of 1.13. In 17' he had a road ERA of 3.49 with a whip of 1.228. Those are the last 2 years before he signed with the Cubs. I am using the road, because Coors Field is a disaster for pitchers. I am sure those stats were also used by the Cubs when deciding on signing him. That along with his above average velocity and spin rate, I am sure went into their idea he might be good. So, as many pitchers do when they come to the Cubs, he has a terrible 2018. Which brings us to 2019, where he was decent. So now we are in 2020. Is it better for him to have a good spring and have people thinking that maybe he can be the guy the Cubs thought he would be in 2018, or have a terrible spring and everyone including Ross, decide he is useless and relegate him to the pen? If you want to know why I am encouraged, it is because the Cubs obviously saw something from him when they signed him. And so far, I know, in a small sample size, he has been very impressive this spring. With the fact that he has been good previously, it is encouraging early to see what he is doing now.

    I get you do not have to agree. But that is why I am encouraged. Again, not looking for an ace. Honestly, if he can be a solid #5 starter that is fine. But the optimistic side of me goes to a possible MOR sort of guy if he can duplicate what he did in 16' and 17' on the road.
    Well, let's backtrack. We should know better than in 2020 to rely on ERA and WHIP. His road FIP/xFIP in 2016 was 3.70/4.40 which shows competent back end starter. In 2017 his road FIP/xFIP was 4.79/4.39. Both of which was well below his ERA. He was a back end SP on the road both seasons.

    Chatwood was never good. He was a project on his velocity and spin. We're in 2020. He's 30. Do I think the Cubs might get competent back end SP out of him? Think it's definitely a possibility. Do I think there's anything to suggest anything more? No. He's Tyler Chatwood. It's fine to be optimistic, but really...there's nothing there outside some real big leaps. We have a half of a season of being a fine RP (30 some IP) and some meaningless ST stats. We have ERA from 2016/2017 but all of the underlying numbers say "don't believe those ERA's". That's not a profile of someone who's going to become a middle rotation arm at 30. Chatwood is what Chatwood is. The optimism seems like optimism for optimisms sake (it's more fun to be optimistic) and not actually backed up by the evidence in most cases.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 03-11-2020 at 10:59 AM.

  4. #604
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    27,252
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    OK bibbs, well lets try this then. In 2016 on the road Chatwood had an ERA of 1.69 with a whip of 1.13. In 17' he had a road ERA of 3.49 with a whip of 1.228. Those are the last 2 years before he signed with the Cubs. I am using the road, because Coors Field is a disaster for pitchers. I am sure those stats were also used by the Cubs when deciding on signing him. That along with his above average velocity and spin rate, I am sure went into their idea he might be good. So, as many pitchers do when they come to the Cubs, he has a terrible 2018. Which brings us to 2019, where he was decent. So now we are in 2020. Is it better for him to have a good spring and have people thinking that maybe he can be the guy the Cubs thought he would be in 2018, or have a terrible spring and everyone including Ross, decide he is useless and relegate him to the pen? If you want to know why I am encouraged, it is because the Cubs obviously saw something from him when they signed him. And so far, I know, in a small sample size, he has been very impressive this spring. With the fact that he has been good previously, it is encouraging early to see what he is doing now.

    I get you do not have to agree. But that is why I am encouraged. Again, not looking for an ace. Honestly, if he can be a solid #5 starter that is fine. But the optimistic side of me goes to a possible MOR sort of guy if he can duplicate what he did in 16' and 17' on the road.
    ERA isn't a great stat here, and I don't think home/road splits had much if anything to do with the Cubs interest in him. 2016 there was a pretty big FIP difference, albeit (a full run). The 3.97 away FIP is nice, but it was 80 innings and I don't think you can really blame Coors for how bad he was at home anyway. Almost all of it can be determined by home run rate. It's why his xFIP had him the same at home as on the road. Overall it was a solid year for him and the best he's ever been. Anyway, it's the only year in his career where you see that kind of differentiation. 2017, his home/road FIP/xFIP are nearly identical despite the ERA.

    I think they saw what Charlie Morton did with the Astros with his velo and spin rate and wanted to jump the market on someone like him. Chatwood fit the bill. Aside from that, it's not like Chatwood was ever bad. They figured worst case scenario, he's the 5th starter for a few years, and we'll pay him a little extra just in case we can tap into more.

    I'm saying regardless of what kind of Spring he has, people shouldn't react to it strongly in either way. Pending an injury or some kind of Rick Ankiel like breakdown where the guy is throwing 50% wild pitches or whatever, these decisions shouldn't be made based on ST. They're stuck with Chatwood at 13.5 mil another season, he has a track record of being a competent backend starter, and he's coming off a much more acceptable season. The 5th spot in the rotation should be his to lose when his best competition is Alec Mills.

    Chatwood was once competent but I think it's a stretch to say he was "good." I think Chatwood just set the bar so low in 2018 that people are gonna be excited by a more normal season in 2019. I get you wanna be optimistic, and that's fine, but I don't think there's any real justification for it other than the fact that Chatwood obviously has the tools to be good, which has always been true.

  5. #605
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    ERA isn't a great stat here, and I don't think home/road splits had much if anything to do with the Cubs interest in him. 2016 there was a pretty big FIP difference, albeit (a full run). The 3.97 away FIP is nice, but it was 80 innings and I don't think you can really blame Coors for how bad he was at home anyway. Almost all of it can be determined by home run rate. It's why his xFIP had him the same at home as on the road. Overall it was a solid year for him and the best he's ever been. Anyway, it's the only year in his career where you see that kind of differentiation. 2017, his home/road FIP/xFIP are nearly identical despite the ERA.

    I think they saw what Charlie Morton did with the Astros with his velo and spin rate and wanted to jump the market on someone like him. Chatwood fit the bill. Aside from that, it's not like Chatwood was ever bad. They figured worst case scenario, he's the 5th starter for a few years, and we'll pay him a little extra just in case we can tap into more.

    I'm saying regardless of what kind of Spring he has, people shouldn't react to it strongly in either way. Pending an injury or some kind of Rick Ankiel like breakdown where the guy is throwing 50% wild pitches or whatever, these decisions shouldn't be made based on ST. They're stuck with Chatwood at 13.5 mil another season, he has a track record of being a competent backend starter, and he's coming off a much more acceptable season. The 5th spot in the rotation should be his to lose when his best competition is Alec Mills.

    Chatwood was once competent but I think it's a stretch to say he was "good." I think Chatwood just set the bar so low in 2018 that people are gonna be excited by a more normal season in 2019. I get you wanna be optimistic, and that's fine, but I don't think there's any real justification for it other than the fact that Chatwood obviously has the tools to be good, which has always been true.
    Ok, that is fair. But I will say to me a competent #5 starter is a bit of an oxymoron to me. I feel if you get a league average starter, that would be a guy I would consider a solid #4 starter. I also consider a MOR starter as a 3 or 4 sort of guy. Maybe it isn't so much we are disagreeing on what he believe Chatwood can produce, but rather we are disagreeing on what label to put on that guy. So, again, rather than put a number on him, I will say this. I am encouraged by what Chatwood has shown so far this spring. And, IMO, if he can throw strikes, he can be a league average to a little above league average pitcher. And if he does that, that does help the staff. No one is suggesting "good" here.

  6. #606
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    55,543
    I guess the only thing I just struggle with is being encouraged by ST. It's fine for those who are...I just don't see any reason. The sample size is meaninglessly small, the competition is spurious at best, and many guys are working on specific things. It feels like every year people try to glean something from it, and it just doesn't do anything other than fill the air. I don't mean to suggest anyone can't do it, by all means, free country in that regards and it's fine. Just feels like an exercise in futility in the end.

    From another sport, but the Flyers promoted two career minor leaguers on Opening Day this year for their NHL team. Coaching staff pointed to how good their camps were as to why they made the team. Everyone was excited! They played so hard in their camps. They were successful there. Neither were on the roster after 10 games. Every sport, every team, has these small sample size warriors.

    Everyone can see what they want in ST. I just think most of it'll be wasted by April 15th. Ian Miller, Tyler Chatwood, Trent Giambrone, whatever. There will be another 5-10 guys people want to talk up. Same after the year after that. I think it's more that we want be optimistic. It feels better to be optimistic.

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    27,252
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Ok, that is fair. But I will say to me a competent #5 starter is a bit of an oxymoron to me. I feel if you get a league average starter, that would be a guy I would consider a solid #4 starter. I also consider a MOR starter as a 3 or 4 sort of guy. Maybe it isn't so much we are disagreeing on what he believe Chatwood can produce, but rather we are disagreeing on what label to put on that guy. So, again, rather than put a number on him, I will say this. I am encouraged by what Chatwood has shown so far this spring. And, IMO, if he can throw strikes, he can be a league average to a little above league average pitcher. And if he does that, that does help the staff. No one is suggesting "good" here.
    Competent as in he's respectable on a competitive roster. That's only true as a 5th starter. 2016 Chatwood was 2 fWAR and that's been his best season. His 4.32 FIP put him 52nd out of 72 qualifying starters. So even in his best year he wasn't even producing at an average rate by the literal definition. You can be encouraged, but I think it's just optimism for optimism's sake.

  8. #608
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,267
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    I guess the only thing I just struggle with is being encouraged by ST. It's fine for those who are...I just don't see any reason. The sample size is meaninglessly small, the competition is spurious at best, and many guys are working on specific things. It feels like every year people try to glean something from it, and it just doesn't do anything other than fill the air. I don't mean to suggest anyone can't do it, by all means, free country in that regards and it's fine. Just feels like an exercise in futility in the end.

    From another sport, but the Flyers promoted two career minor leaguers on Opening Day this year for their NHL team. Coaching staff pointed to how good their camps were as to why they made the team. Everyone was excited! They played so hard in their camps. They were successful there. Neither were on the roster after 10 games. Every sport, every team, has these small sample size warriors.

    Everyone can see what they want in ST. I just think most of it'll be wasted by April 15th. Ian Miller, Tyler Chatwood, Trent Giambrone, whatever. There will be another 5-10 guys people want to talk up. Same after the year after that. I think it's more that we want be optimistic. It feels better to be optimistic.
    Zagunis last year is another example. He made the team because Happ was a mess and there were no other options, but Zagunis had a monster spring. People had moderate levels of intrigue in him like they do in some of the other AAA filler in camp this year. The Cubs still had zero confidence in him. He only got 40 PAs all year. He started 6 games. He was awful and then had a pretty weak AAA season, too.

    Performance in 50 PAs in ST or 15 Spring IP is basically meaningless. ST stats should never determine roster spots. If someone is showing better stuff on their pitches in ST that can be encouraging, or a new swing that can be reason for hope, but good/bad numbers donít mean anything. Iím much more concerned about Kimbrel sitting at 94 (though itís early) than I am excited about Chatwood having good control in 8 innings.

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    4,809
    Shame that opening game is 2 weeks away and I'm not excited for it to happen because I'm not going to be able to watch games on my TV because of Comcast..

  10. #610
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles County, CA
    Posts
    44,652
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    What I think is ridiculous is that people feel like they should just be able to say anything they want without me asking them to elaborate or justify what they're saying.

    Anyone can say and believe anything, but why is it such an insult for me to show evidence to the contrary? I'm not trying to shut anyone down, just have a discussion. If you think the evidence I'm presenting is wrong, tell me how it's wrong.

    If I ask you to present a basis for what you're saying and you can't or don't want to, just say it. It's perfectly fine to feel something, but just present it that way instead of something that's just as valid as a statement made with evidence.
    I find it ridiculous that you guys are adamantly stating that ST stats are entirely meaningless without presenting any irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I personally believe that guys who are on the fringe can win a roster spot with strong performance(s). I've read teams reporters infer as such. I've also seen teams make trades from their 25/26 once ST was over because they deemed a player expendable once another player stepped up and proved themselves in ST.

    Where is your evidence that this never happens and that teams arent paying attention to ST performance?

  11. #611
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    55,543
    Quote Originally Posted by WOwolfOL View Post
    I find it ridiculous that you guys are adamantly stating that ST stats are entirely meaningless without presenting any irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I personally believe that guys who are on the fringe can win a roster spot with strong performance(s). I've read teams reporters infer as such. I've also seen teams make trades from their 25/26 once ST was over because they deemed a player expendable once another player stepped up and proved themselves in ST.

    Where is your evidence that this never happens and that teams arent paying attention to ST performance?
    I don't think that anyone is suggesting teams aren't paying attention to them. I think the argument is more along the lines of "maybe they shouldn't very often". CP414 has shown Zaguins won a spot last year, proceeded to suck, get shipped to AAA and then was a below average player there. I've shown that Ian Miller and Trent Giambrone's adjusted AAA stats last year would make them purely awful MLB players. I'm not sure there's really any statistics to even show that strong ST's numbers flow into the regular season. We know plenty about statistics to know that 50 PA's is not a statistically relevant sample size during the season. It's not enough for numbers to stabilize in most cases, and we know how much SSS issues can be. It seems like because these numbers happen at the very start of the season, people give them an evaluative weight they don't deserve.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 03-11-2020 at 12:46 PM.

  12. #612
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    I guess the only thing I just struggle with is being encouraged by ST. It's fine for those who are...I just don't see any reason. The sample size is meaninglessly small, the competition is spurious at best, and many guys are working on specific things. It feels like every year people try to glean something from it, and it just doesn't do anything other than fill the air. I don't mean to suggest anyone can't do it, by all means, free country in that regards and it's fine. Just feels like an exercise in futility in the end.

    From another sport, but the Flyers promoted two career minor leaguers on Opening Day this year for their NHL team. Coaching staff pointed to how good their camps were as to why they made the team. Everyone was excited! They played so hard in their camps. They were successful there. Neither were on the roster after 10 games. Every sport, every team, has these small sample size warriors.

    Everyone can see what they want in ST. I just think most of it'll be wasted by April 15th. Ian Miller, Tyler Chatwood, Trent Giambrone, whatever. There will be another 5-10 guys people want to talk up. Same after the year after that. I think it's more that we want be optimistic. It feels better to be optimistic.
    I guess what I struggle with is those who act like ST is COMPLETELY meaningless to everyone. I get it. If Bryant is hitting 100 this spring, I am not worried. If Perez was having a great spring that is not a reason to get encouraged, or to pencil him into the job at 2nd base. Chatwood is neither Bryant nor Perez.
    To me there are some guys that spring numbers can give hope or despair. IMO Chatwood is one of those guys. And it doesn't even matter the competition. With Chatwood it is all about throwing strikes. Now maybe bad competition is swinging at pitches out of the zone, and when the real season starts he will struggle. But for now, what I have seen in the box score (which I said all along) is encouraging to me. BTW, not to the point that I am advocating that if they move Q, I am great with Chatwood taking the #4 spot in the rotation and Mills taking the 5th spot. Just suggesting maybe he will be a solid starter in the rotation, if he continues to throw strikes.
    You say spring doesn't matter. So, if Chatwood walked 10 guys in the 8 innings he has worked and was hit hard, would you feel exactly the same about him as you do now? I wouldn't.

  13. #613
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,267

    2020 Cubs Spring Training Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by WOwolfOL View Post
    I find it ridiculous that you guys are adamantly stating that ST stats are entirely meaningless without presenting any irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I personally believe that guys who are on the fringe can win a roster spot with strong performance(s). I've read teams reporters infer as such. I've also seen teams make trades from their 25/26 once ST was over because they deemed a player expendable once another player stepped up and proved themselves in ST.

    Where is your evidence that this never happens and that teams arent paying attention to ST performance?
    I wouldnít say that never happens. Iíd say that shouldnít happen without a great underlying reason to explain why such a small sample size against various levels of competition could be meaningful. If a pitcher has a velo jump and the results are great, that could be meaningful. If the spin rate explodes and they are striking out 40%, then thatís important. If itís an 8 year minor leaguer who isnít very good who hits .350/.450/.600 over 30 PAs, thatís not meaningful on its own.

  14. #614
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    86,855
    I just realized Addision Russel is STILL a FA. Bum.

  15. #615
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    55,543
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    I guess what I struggle with is those who act like ST is COMPLETELY meaningless to everyone. I get it. If Bryant is hitting 100 this spring, I am not worried. If Perez was having a great spring that is not a reason to get encouraged, or to pencil him into the job at 2nd base. Chatwood is neither Bryant nor Perez.
    To me there are some guys that spring numbers can give hope or despair. IMO Chatwood is one of those guys. And it doesn't even matter the competition. With Chatwood it is all about throwing strikes. Now maybe bad competition is swinging at pitches out of the zone, and when the real season starts he will struggle. But for now, what I have seen in the box score (which I said all along) is encouraging to me. BTW, not to the point that I am advocating that if they move Q, I am great with Chatwood taking the #4 spot in the rotation and Mills taking the 5th spot. Just suggesting maybe he will be a solid starter in the rotation, if he continues to throw strikes.
    You say spring doesn't matter. So, if Chatwood walked 10 guys in the 8 innings he has worked and was hit hard, would you feel exactly the same about him as you do now? I wouldn't.
    I would. Because his 8 innings are just like Bryant. Why is Kris Bryant allowed to have a bad ST but we still know what he is due to his career versus Chatwood? Chatwood has 828 IP at the MLB level. The sample size says enough. Chatwood is who Chatwood is as much as Kris Bryant is who Kris Bryant is. Whether they have a good or a bad spring...it doesn't change it.

    It seems to me that people want to be optimistic when it suits them (in the case of Chatwood), but want to give someone like Bryant a pass if he's bad. Because again...it's the optimistic feel. "Yeah, Bryant's having a bad spring but I'm optimistic he'll still be Byrant!" It doesn't matter if someone's having a good spring, a bad spring...they're almost assuredly going to be the guy they always are.

    I'm as indifferent to Bryant's spring as I am to Chatwood's spring. Neither matter, really. I might feel a little different if Chatwood's been working all offseason on a completely revamped motion. But I haven't seen anything to suggest we're talking that drastic.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 03-11-2020 at 12:52 PM.

Page 41 of 112 FirstFirst ... 3139404142435191 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •