Quantcast

I’m the first to admit I’m not a full-on sabermetrician.

That’s not to say I don’t use my fair share of “modern” statistics when actually evaluating players – sure, I like hearing about homer totals and batting average as much as any fan, but telling me that CC Sabathia is good because he won 21 games last year will get you nowhere. My use of advanced stats, though, typically goes only as far as ERA+ for evaluating pitchers (with its non-advanced complements ERA, WHIP, K/9 and BB/9) and OPS+ for hitters (throwing in OPS, IsoP, IsoD, and XBH/K for good measure). Now, that’s not because I don’t recognize that advanced metrics have their place, or because I don’t understand that they can sometimes quantify things that are hard to see with my eyes. But, generally, I prefer to speak a language we can all appreciate – and advanced stats simply aren’t everybody’s thing.

That all said, in my daily/weekly/monthly perusal of stats, I noticed something developing over the course of the 2010 season that is worth discussing here, particularly as the debate as to who should be in the Cubs’ rotation and whom the Cubs should acquire for that rotation heats up.

So what did I notice?

Randy Wells was performing much better on advanced paper than he seemingly was on the field.

While we were all seeing a guy regress from his 2009 form, with reduced control, a straighter fastball, and short outing after short outing, the advanced stats saw something else. They saw a guy who was, consistently, one of the best pitchers on the 2010 club. Of course, that’s a bit of a tallest midget medal, but still, it was surprising, given his sometimes 5.00+ ERA, and constant failure to escape the early innings unscathed.

The basic statistics backed up what we were seeing: Wells’ ERA ballooned from an impressive 3.05 in 2009 to 4.26 in 2010 (a dominant July – 1.83 ERA in 5 starts – helped curb that final ERA) and his WHIP went from 1.276 to 1.400. His peripherals were a bit of a mixed bag, but certainly didn’t indicate improvement: while his K/9 increased from 5.7 to 6.7 (arguably a bad sign for a control pitcher), his BB/9 and H/9 both jumped in 2010. Unsurprisingly, his ERA+ fell from a truly great 142 in 2009 to a minimally above average 102 in 2010.

Clearly, you would be wise to conclude, Wells had regressed.

Unless you dug into the advanced stats. It turns out, Wells was a little lucky in 2009, and was unlucky in 2010. And in both years, he was pretty much the same pitcher.

One of the best measures of a pitcher’s luck – BABIP (batting average on balls in play) against – supports this theory. In 2009, Wells had a BABIP of .294, which is slightly better (or more lucky) than average (about .300). In 2010, that number rose to a very unlucky .320. What that means is, either Wells was giving up a ton more line drives in 2010 than in 2009, or balls that weren’t finding holes in 2009 were finding holes in 2010. In reality, it was probably a combination of the two, but at a minimum, it suggests that Wells wasn’t as bad as we thought.

Wells’ FIP (fielding independent pitching) tells the same story, as it was 3.88 in 2009, and only slightly higher – 3.93 – in 2010. Some folks swear by FIP, as it attempts to judge a pitcher only on those things he can control, and not the things that are dependent on the fielding behind him; but I haven’t yet been persuaded that it is quite comprehensive enough (it literally considers only home runs, walks, and strikeouts). Still, over a large enough sample size, FIP is a useful tool, among others.

Finally, considering the most in vogue sabermetric stat – Wins Above Replacement, which attempts to calculate how many wins a player was worth over a theoretical replacement level player – Randy Wells was actually better in 2010 than he was in 2009. His 2009 WAR was a solid 3.1, but in 2010 it was an even better 3.3. The difference is mostly explained by his worse luck in 2010, his increased strikeout production in 2010, and the simple fact that he threw 29 more innings in 2010.

In fact, based on WAR, Wells was the 22nd most valuable starting pitcher in the NL last year – ahead of guys like Jaime Garcia (3.2), Tim Hudson (2.7), and Jonathan Sanchez (2.6). What are the chances you’d be turning up your nose at having any of those guys in the 2011 rotation? Wells was second on the Cubs, behind only Ryan Dempster (3.5), and was even more valuable – if you believe WAR – than Carlos Marmol (3.1 – making Marmol, by far, the most valuable reliever in the NL last year – as if you actually needed statistics to tell you that one).

Oh, and as for the two hot names on the Cubs’ target list? Fausto Carmona and Matt Garza? You guessed it – the Cubs were better off with Wells, who out-pitched both Carmona (2.7 WAR) and Garza (1.8 WAR).

So is WAR the end-all-be-all of player evaluation? I guess technically, it’s supposed to be. But no. Is FIP? BABIP? Nah. Statistics are a useful way of quantifying what we see, but they are not a total replacement for what we see. I don’t need to know his FIP to know that John Grabow was garbage in 2010, just like I don’t need to know Randy Wells’ stats to know that he wasn’t quite as effective, on the whole, in 2010 as he was in 2009.

But these advanced stats do tell me that I – and others – have dramatically underestimated Randy Wells’ value in both 2009 and 2010. Through his first two full seasons, Randy Wells has proved to be a very good number three starter, and there is little reason to believe he won’t continue to be that in 2011.

  • greg

    Hm, very interesting. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that most ground ball pitchers tend to fluctuate like this. I assume BABIP is fielding influenced as well? Because God knows our fielding was worse this year.

    Hopefully his BABIP regresses to the mean a little next year. He’s still a pretty dang good pitcher IMO and very useful.

  • Jeff

    I like Wells. I hope he pitches for the Cubs for a long time. He’s a solid innings eater, doesn’t walk an excessive amount of guys, and is the quiet, hard working type that doesn’t seem to exist much in professional athletics these days. Regardless of what the stats say, he was clearly better as a rookie, but he wasn’t horrible and didn’t regress as a sophomore player. If you take away his 3 or 4 really bad starts where he was chased before the third inning, his stats are actually better than his rookie year. If he can get over his first inning Tom Glavine syndrome, I think he can be very good.

  • Jeff

    I’m actually kind of curious/nervous as to how all these guys are going to pitch without Larry Rothschild around. Speaking of great pitching coaches, does anyone know what happened to Leo Mazzone? He was a big thing with pitchers and then we suddenly didn’t hear anything from him after he failed as a manager. Just curious, because it seems that the Cubs didn’t put in a whole lot of effort in their “search” for a new pitching coach.

    • roughriider

      Leo Mazzone is a color commentator for Fox.

  • pfk (Peter F. Kempf)

    Thanks for the stats. For young players, it is a game of adjusting to the “Book” others get on you. A rookie hitter could be great – until they get a book on his week spot. In the off season they adjust and come at you differently in your sophomore year, which often explains the “Sophomore Jinx.” So, you either adjust or bust out. How many one-year-wonders have we seen over the years? Soto did a pretty good job of making the necessary adjustments. Colvin is a classic case of being red hot and pitchers getting a “Book” on him – hence the late season swoon. It will be interesting to see how he does this year. The same goes for pitchers. Hitters got a “Book” on Wells and adjusted – but he struggled. Now, he has to adjust. The third year is always telling for the kids. Can they adjust and beat the Book or not? Pie and Patterson never learned to lay off or hit the low and away curve. Never beat the “Book.”

  • art

    i think Leo went to baltimore, with that staff he was average. yes on pie/patterson/soriano. let’s see how this staff does without Larry.

  • http://none@none.com eryk

    Well said and you didn’t even count the sophomore slump yet. Definitely Wells over Carmona or Garza.

  • Ron

    I agree, I really liked Wells and think part of his good rookie year had partially to do with Greg Maddox’s influence. I want to see him pitch for the cubs again this year.

  • http://www.givejonadollar.com givejonadollar

    Glad to see someone is thinking this way about Wells. I still think he is a super high value guy, with a great work ethic, that is going to break through and have success.

    I look for big things from him.

  • roughriider

    I like Wells as well. I don’t think he has gotten his due. The Cubs have several middle of the road potential starters with major league experience and a few up and coming pitchers with potential. They will have a logjam on the pitching staff and some of them will have to be dealt. I think the Cubs will give Silva every chance to prove he is capable of repeating or coming close to the first half of last year to enhance his trade value. Gorzellany, Wells and Samardzija will get every chance to show they can start for the Cubs. In a perfect world they would all do well and one or two will be traded at the trade deadline and make room for younger guys to get some experience in 2011. They all have value in that any team that trades for them has control over them for at least a couple of years.

    I fear that Marshall will leave as a free agent when he has the right. He’s done everything they have asked of him and he has let them know his preference is starting. I’m hoping they can sign him to a multi year contarct. He is close to 30 and thats when major league players seem to have the experience and smarts to be stars.

    I’d like to see Cashner start in AAA to get some more experience and leave him there until he shows he can start consistently or show he’d be better off as a reliever.

    Leo Mazzone is a color commentator for Fox.

  • Pingback: Even Randy Wells Has Bought into the “Randy Wells Was Terrible in 2010″ Story | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • Pingback: Randy Wells Is Not the Partier You Might Think Him to Be | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • Pingback: If Randy Wells Doesn’t Make the Rotation, He’s Going to AAA Iowa | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+