:: ball talk ::

ESPN.com columnist Rob Neyer takes an interesting look at the NL Central today, asking the following question: who really is the class of the division?

Neyer concludes that the answer to this question is, quite simply, Houston, citing the Cubs' "luck" in 1-run games last year as an indicator that Chicago wasn't as good as its 2003 record indicates.

The Cubs were 27-17 in one-run games (in the National League, only the Giants were better), and the Cardinals were 14-25 in one-run games (only the Mets were worse). There is one, and only one, legitimate explanation for those one-run records, and that explanation is blind luck. I know many of you believe that one-run records are determined largely by bullpens and/or "chemistry," but there simply isn't any evidence that either of those plays a significant factor in one-run games. Last year in one-run games, the Tigers had a winning record (19-18) and the Braves had a losing record (17-25).

Neyer concludes that while the Cubs will enter 2004 an improved team, it likely won't be enough to offset both the inevitable decline in "luck" and the improvements the Astros have made to their rotation.

Runs scored and runs allowed? The Astros outscored their opponents by 123 runs in 2003 (edit: versus the Cubs 42), and since then they've added Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens to the roster. Yes, they've lost Billy Wagner, but they've also "lost" Geoff Blum, who probably cost the Astros a couple of games last season with his .295 on-base percentage in 123 games.

I tend to agree with Neyer's conclusions, though maybe not with the degree to which he makes them. Neyer points out that full seasons from Patterson, Lee, and A. Ramirez will improve the offense. Last year's third-base tandem of Bellhorn-Hernandez-Ramirez combined for a VORP (or Value Over Replacement Player, explained here) of 9.2 -- Aramis alone next year projects at 35.2. Karros-Simon-Choi last year were at 19.7, while Lee projects at 40.8. The Patterson-Lofton combo, on the other hand, combined for an Andrew Jones-esque 42.8 last year, while a Patterson-Hollandsworth tandem this year projects for a significant drop-off at 23.2. One place Neyer didn't look, though, was at the second-base platoon of Grudz-Walker, which if properly implemented could show a nice improvement at the keystone. To summarize the first three positions, though:

	--------VORP-------
	2003	2004	NET
3b	9.2	35.2	+26
1b	19.7	40.8	+21.1
cf	42.8	23.2	-19.6
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL			+27.5

Adding 27.5 VORP, or the equivalent of almost 3 wins, is nothing to sneeze at, but by itself might not be enough for the Cubs to perch atop the division.

Neyer also remarks that the Cubs will be better "just getting Shawn Estes out of the rotation, no matter who takes his place". This, I would imagine, is self-evident to any Cubs fan, even the most casual. But again, a matter of degree:

	--------VORP-------
Estes 2003      -19.8
Cruz 2004       11.6 (projected)
---------------------------
TOTAL           +31.4

Adding about 3 wins by replacing one starter is simply astounding, and shows just how much the Cubs were hurt by Estes last year. And if Maddux chooses Cubbie blue, you can tack on yet another couple of projected wins.

Have the Cubs done enough to make up the difference in run differential between themselves and the hitting- and suddenly pitching-rich Astros? Probably not. But it may be a bit closer of a call than Neyer's article today makes it seem.

	ball talk	blog home site home