Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

Edwin Jackson or Shaun Marcum


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:43 AM

We're all crestfallen over the whole Anibal Sanchez ordeal. It's time to move on. Here's a comparison of the next two potential arms the Cubs should target:

Jackson 47.3% GB, 7.97 K/9, 2.75 BB/9, 1.09 HR/9, 11.7% HR/FB, .237 AVG, 1.22 WHIP, 71.2% LOB, .278 BABIP
Marcum 35.4% GB, 7.91 K/9, 2.98 BB/9, 1.16 HR/9, 10.6% HR/FB, .241 AVG, 1.27 WHIP, 75.0% LOB, .280 BABIP

Jackson was 32nd in xFIP [min 100 IP] in NL for 2012 w/3.79
Marcum was 62nd in xFIP [min 100 IP] in NL for 2012 w/4.21

(Scott Feldman was 16th in xFIP in AL for 2012 w/3.87)
(Scott Baker was 15th in xFIP in AL for 2011 w/3.61)
(Jeff Samrdzija was 9th in xFIP in NL for 2012 w/3.38)
(Matt Garza was 20th in xFIP [min 100 IP] in NL for 2012 w/3.59)
(Travis Wood was 70th in xFIP [min 100 IP] in NL for 2012 w/4.62)

If we acquire Jackson or Marcum, Travis Wood gets easily sent to the pen, unless he dominates in Spring Training or the Cubs deem Baker not arm-healthy enough to begin the season as a starter.

BTW, Anibal Sanchez was 17th in xFIP in NL for 2012 w/3.54, so there's that. Here's a few other things...

R.A. Dickey will be in the AL (#8 in xFIP in NL)
Joe Blanton will be in the AL (#11 in xFIP in NL)
Ryan Dempster will stay in the AL (#25 in xFIP in NL)
Josh Johnson will be in the AL (#26 in xFIP in NL)
Lucas Harrell will be in the AL with the Astros' move to AL (#38 in xFIP in NL)

But, the Dodgers keep Josh Beckett and add Zack Greinke.

#2 OCCubFan

OCCubFan

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • LocationSanibel Island

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

This is a very interesting compilation of data. While I was reading it, a thought (probably not original) came to me for an objective, though certainly far from perfect, method for deciding who is a #1 starter. There are 15 teams in each league. Hence, if a pitcher is rated #1 to #15 in xFIP in his league, then he should be deemed to be a #1 starter; if rated #16 to #30, then he is a #2 starter; etc.

By that measure, the Cubs now have two #1 starters (Shark & Baker), two #2 starters (Feldman & Garza), and a #5 (Wood). That's pretty good.

Furthermore, Jackson would be a #3 and Marcum a #5.

#3 King Jeff

King Jeff

    King of all Cubs fans!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,476 posts
  • Twitter:@peaceknuckle
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

This is a very interesting compilation of data. While I was reading it, a thought (probably not original) came to me for an objective, though certainly far from perfect, method for deciding who is a #1 starter. There are 15 teams in each league. Hence, if a pitcher is rated #1 to #15 in xFIP in his league, then he should be deemed to be a #1 starter; if rated #16 to #30, then he is a #2 starter; etc.

By that measure, the Cubs now have two #1 starters (Shark & Baker), two #2 starters (Feldman & Garza), and a #5 (Wood). That's pretty good.

Furthermore, Jackson would be a #3 and Marcum a #5.

If you go by that standard, wouldn't there be 30 number one starters? There are 30 teams, so the top 30 rated starters would be number one guys, right?

#4 OCCubFan

OCCubFan

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • LocationSanibel Island

Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:49 PM

I went by the xFIP rank in each league because that's the way Mike Taylor presented the data. Combining both leagues and taking the best 30 xFIPs and calling them #1s would certainly be a reasonable approach.

#5 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,638 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:14 AM

Wow. Those xFIP comparisons are very, very interesting.

#6 PRcajun

PRcajun

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 217 posts
  • LocationStatesboro, GA

Posted 16 December 2012 - 08:33 AM

Good post question Mike (and subsequent follow up OC). I was surprised with some of the rankings based on xFIP). I would probably bid on Marcum rather than Jackson. Seems to me that neither one would be an ideal target for the team moving forward beyond 2013 or 2014. From reading the BN pages it seems that Marcum would appear to be less of a risk cost-wise, but perhaps more of a risk performance-wise. Does that sound right?

With that in mind (and as a side note), of all of the front office and personnel moves that have been made, have we also added to the medical staff? Seems like they'll have their hands full with all the players coming back from injury/surgery.

#7 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:04 PM

We have a great rehabilitation clinic in Arizona.

It's not performance risk with Marcum, it's injury risk.

#8 Voice of reason

Voice of reason

    I'm New

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:26 PM

I would pass on both. Maybe sign one of the two, but only for one year! Let's stick with the plan. No long term commitments! Let's get out of the hole hendry dug and keep adding young prospects.

Then two years from now we can start adding free agents to longer term deals at positions where we don't have a young kid at.

#9 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:57 AM

The hole Hendry dug was giving out no trade clauses.

You can sign whoever you want and then trade them for prospects later.

Padres are out on Edwin Jackson if it goes to a 4th year. I agree with Brett, in that, we should only go as high as 4/$48M-$50M.

Deal Garza to Texas for 3B Olt and RHSP Grimm (or LHSP Perez if you can) in the middle of Spring Training.

#10 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,365 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:33 AM

The plan is not to avoid long term contracts. It is to avoid paying players long term contracts for past performance. The FO is wanting to project out into the future what a player is going to do and pay for that rather than paying for a 37 year old outfielder $18 million a year.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#11 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:12 AM

Very interesting... If you take the xFIP over the last 2 years, the distance between Jackson and Marcum stays about the same.



#12 hansman1982

hansman1982

    King Regent of The Calendar Trivia Empire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,938 posts
  • Twitter:JoeHansman
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:35 AM


This is a very interesting compilation of data. While I was reading it, a thought (probably not original) came to me for an objective, though certainly far from perfect, method for deciding who is a #1 starter. There are 15 teams in each league. Hence, if a pitcher is rated #1 to #15 in xFIP in his league, then he should be deemed to be a #1 starter; if rated #16 to #30, then he is a #2 starter; etc.

By that measure, the Cubs now have two #1 starters (Shark & Baker), two #2 starters (Feldman & Garza), and a #5 (Wood). That's pretty good.

Furthermore, Jackson would be a #3 and Marcum a #5.

If you go by that standard, wouldn't there be 30 number one starters? There are 30 teams, so the top 30 rated starters would be number one guys, right?


Depends...Goldstein and others would greatly disagree and say there are only 10-15 #1 starters in the bigs at any one time (the truly elite if you will): Verlander, Sabathia, Hernandez, Klafczynski, etc...

Ideally you probably should do it in standard deviations from some midpoint (average xFIP or WAR or whatever of guys with >150IP) to get an unbiased list

#13 King Jeff

King Jeff

    King of all Cubs fans!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,476 posts
  • Twitter:@peaceknuckle
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:49 PM

The hole Hendry dug was giving out no trade clauses.

I think the only ntc's he gave out were to Zambrano and Soriano. I could be wrong, but while those were both tough contracts to carry, I don't think that was the shovel he was using to dig. I think it was because he failed to supplement/complement the big named guys with any kind of home grown talent, and didn't pull the trigger often enough when trying to trade that talent. I don't know if it was money, poor coaching, or bad drafting, but the Hendry era produced far too few contributors from within.

I say it doesn't matter which one we get, because both would just be stop-gaps, to be moved when it's most convenient for the Cubs, and I don't see much difference in their performance and injury/mental risk. If I had to choose, I'd go with Marcum. Simply because he has been injured and we probably haven't seen a full season of him at his best. I think he can turn out to be more of an asset than Jackson, who's ceiling we have probably seen already.

#14 Tommy

Tommy

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • LocationPekin, IL

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:19 PM

Jeff - that's an interesting angle to consider that I hadn't thought about. Marcum is two years older than Jackson, though, so I think that would play into it quite a bit. I would be curious how each fared in day games in comparison, and also, any idea which home field they pitched in would be considered more of a pitcher's park?

I could probably look that stuff up, but I'm lazy and the internet at work is ridiculously slow. Don't they know I've got important baseball stuff to look up! wth!
- diehard fanclub member #002

#15 Fishin Phil

Fishin Phil

    Wally Pipp of Cubs Calendar

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,034 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:47 PM

Tommy, you don't by anychance work at an insurance company named after the town you are in, do you?
Please don't feed the psychos.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).