February 25, 2008
Rotation Evaluation, Chicago Cubs
The series looking at team pitching rotations using the Marcel the Monkey projections continues with the Chicago Cubs. Their starters posted 4.19 ERA in 2007, second in the National League.
Note that in figuring ERAs, I'm using Marcel's mIP and mER columns. The ERA listed in the spreadsheet uses the average of mER and bsrER. I wanted to avoid posting 1/2 runs in the table. Pitcher order is taken from the CBSSportsline depth chart.
Ted Lilly
Photo: Icon SMI
Marcel predictions for the Chicago Cubs top five starters for 2008.
Starter | Innings | ER | ERA |
Carlos Zambrano | 190 | 79 | 3.74 |
Ted Lilly | 182 | 86 | 4.25 |
Rich Hill | 165 | 77 | 4.20 |
Jason Marquis | 175 | 95 | 4.89 |
Ryan Dempster | 66 | 33 | 4.50 |
Totals | 778 | 370 | 4.28 |
Note that Lilly is predicted to see his ERA rise half a run after a career year in 2007. Marquis will likely show a rise as well. Zambrano makes up for that a little bit with his ERA dropping by 0.2 runs.
The wild card here is Dempster who hasn't started since 2003. At that time, however, he did post three seasons with over 200 innings. I'm guessing he's more likely to pitch 160 innings if he lasts in the rotation, leaving the Cubs to cover only about 100 innings with other starters.
Even with the rise in ERA by Lilly and Marquis, this looks to be good rotation. If Lilly matured and his 2007 performance represents a real improvement, the Cubs will once again trot out one of the best starting staffs in the majors.
Previous posts in this series:
I think Lilly's year will be closer to 2007 than the Marcels predict, because they're neglecting his move from the AL east to the NL central. Did that really get past you, or do you think he had a career year on top of that?
They aren't neglecting the move at all, Lilly pitched over his head last year, he has never shown command like that in the past.
I don't think that is a very fair model you posted for the Cubs since you have the #5 starter listed at only 66 IP. If you assume another 90 IP of roughly 4.50-5.00 ERA in the 5 slot that team ERA is up over 4.30.
Yes, Marcels is ignoring the change in league. Marcels doesn't care about league effects - it's a very simplistic model. Models that do care about such things still show Lilly having a regression from last season.
Lilly won't regress that much, but might a little. Marquis will probably be about the same, but hill should be better than predicted. Z will be better than he was last year for sure.
It looks like the rotation is going to be
1. Z
2. Lilly
3. Dempster
4. Hill
5. Lieber/marquis
Those are lou's early indications, like it or not
Lilly won't regress that much, but might a little. Marquis will probably be about the same, but hill should be better than predicted. Z will be better than he was last year for sure.
It looks like the rotation is going to be
1. Z
2. Lilly
3. Dempster
4. Hill
5. Lieber/marquis
Those are lou's early indications, like it or not
I'm confused by the statement that the Cubs "will once again trot out one of the best starting staffs in the majors," when 10 of the other 12 teams so far evaluated have lower total projected eras? I understand that the statement was conditional, but still, there seems to be a logical disconnect. Either the Cubs' total era will be lower (to fit their status as on of the best) or their staff should be evaluated as simply above average.