BA Picks Cubs 5th in Division (Media Prediction Thread)

[Laura]

Just one chapter?

[thedaymen]

I have to admint, I'm pretty pessimistic about this year...I just don't see this being a great team. Better than last year, but not a playoff contender unless the division is won by a .500 team again.

 

I think Lee and Soriano are going to give the Cubs around 65-70 hr's, good numbers certainly. However, I think a lot of the fans here are expecting them to equal their career best numbers this season. Remember, Lee has only had one year where he was a superstar hitter, and Soriano has been known to be inconsistant. Will they be better than the production the Cubs got last year? Yes. A lot better? No.

 

The Cubs still have a hole at the bottom of the lineup with Izturis and DeRosa both probably contributing sub-par years. Throw those two together with the pitcher's spot, and you're putting almost all of the run scoring stress on the first six spots.

 

Then there's the rotation...Z, Lily, Marquis, Hill, ?. You got an ace who's been abused during his early years, a .500 pitcher, the Cardinals' 10th starter from last year, a second year guy who has a lot of expectations and an unknown. Its not a terrible thing to have a ? in the fifth spot, especially since it could be Prior and be a find or Miller and be average. The Cubs' have a decent rotation that could end up being terrible, if Z's mileage catches up with him and Hill regresses, or could be great...no problem with Z or Hill, Prior regains some of his old form.

 

To look at this team and see a lot of power at the top of the lineup and a lot of concerns isn't unreasonable. I think they'll be better, but better isn't always good enough.

[David]

Will they be better than the production the Cubs got last year? Yes. A lot better? No.

 

Just had to point out that I feel that this is just very inaccurate, unless you have an extremely demanding definition of "a lot." Do you realize how bad the production out of CF and 1B was for the Cubs last year?

 

Even average seasons out of Lee and Sori would be vast improvements over last year.

[Balsa]

Will they be better than the production the Cubs got last year? Yes. A lot better? No.

 

Just had to point out that I feel that this is just very inaccurate, unless you have an extremely demanding definition of "a lot." Do you realize how bad the production out of CF and 1B was for the Cubs last year?

 

Even average seasons out of Lee and Sori would be vast improvements over last year.

Yeah, but we could very easily be last year's Phillies, with tons of runs scored, but enough allowed to negate that.

[CubColtPacer]

Will they be better than the production the Cubs got last year? Yes. A lot better? No.

 

Just had to point out that I feel that this is just very inaccurate, unless you have an extremely demanding definition of "a lot." Do you realize how bad the production out of CF and 1B was for the Cubs last year?

 

Even average seasons out of Lee and Sori would be vast improvements over last year.

Yeah, but we could very easily be last year's Phillies, with tons of runs scored, but enough allowed to negate that.

 

That's true-we could be that. The only pitching staff that I can see in the division though that is probably better than the Cubs though is the Brewers. Everybody else has serious question marks, and most have serious question marks in both the rotation and bullpen, while the Cubs have at least more than 1-2 quality arms in the pen.

[jjgman21]

I don't get the outrage. The Cubs were terrible last year people. They could gain 14 wins this year and still be below .500. You really have to be thinking optimistically to even put them at 85 wins and 2nd place. That's an enormous jump, not unheard of, but spectacularly rare.

 

Agreed. What sure things are there on this team aside from Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano? There are a lot of question marks, IMO. Soriano could regress to his 2004-2005 numbers, DeRosa could very easily (some might even argue that it's likely) regress a great deal from 2006. Izturis is a good bet to be bad, injured or both. Jones' numbers were up from his previous two years in 2006 and could easily come back down. Marquis was obscenely bad last year and Lilly isn't exactly a great fit (pitching style wise) for the NL Central. Prior is a huge question mark and who the hell knows what Miller will provide.

 

you see, here's the thing about the pessimism v. optimism thing. I don't think anyone here is overly optimistic. I do think several are overly pessimistic, and it screams at you with posts like this. with the strengths from last year that carry over it's 'regression regression regression.' with the question marks and bad recent past performances it's 'ain't gonna change.'

 

people who do the rational thing, pick the middle ground, see the question marks but also see the opportunities, account for setbacks and regression and potential for improvement, balance out the PT from last year with what will probably happen this year, compare to the other teams in the division, have reason to be slightly optimistic about this team.

 

what also screams at you is the fact that the same people who poopoo on the various projections that show the Cubs scoring over 800 runs this year come so strongly to the defense of predictions that have the Cubs finishing 5th.

[Mephistopheles]

I can see how BA has the Cardinals and Brewers ahead of the Cubs. I could see the 'Stros if Clemens rejoins in May or June and pitches lights out. The only big thing I notice are the Reds. There's just no way.

 

BA certainly did not do a systematic study analyzing what the Cubs gained (and other teams lost) to determine this. It was more gut-feel than anything. Take it with a grain of salt.

[CubColtPacer]

BTW, I heard when Callis was on the radio yesterday (from another board) that he likes Graffanino and Counsell for the Brewers, but that he doesn't like DeRosa or Izturis, and they said that Callis implied that he was surprised that Theriot was a major leaguer at all. With all those assumptions, it makes it easier to understand why he would pick the way that they did, although I wouldn't personally make many of those assumptions.

[goonys evil twin]

you see, here's the thing about the pessimism v. optimism thing. I don't think anyone here is overly optimistic. I do think several are overly pessimistic, and it screams at you with posts like this.

 

That right there is biased.

 

what also screams at you is the fact that the same people who poopoo on the various projections that show the Cubs scoring over 800 runs this year come so strongly to the defense of predictions that have the Cubs finishing 5th.

 

Since I came to the defense of somebody's ability to predict the Cubs finishing 5th, I'm going to take this as a pretty blatant attack at me. I don't see the Cubs offense being great this year. I see it being better, I see it being potent in stretches, and I see it having potential for greatness. But OBP, the single most important offensive stat, remains a problem. And that will likely be what keeps this talented lineup from being a truly great run scoring lineup. Call it poopooing if you want. I just don't see the point in getting worked up when somebody suggest the Cubs will be something besides great.

[98navigator]

Will they be better than the production the Cubs got last year? Yes. A lot better? No.

 

Just had to point out that I feel that this is just very inaccurate, unless you have an extremely demanding definition of "a lot." Do you realize how bad the production out of CF and 1B was for the Cubs last year?

 

Even average seasons out of Lee and Sori would be vast improvements over last year.

Yeah, but we could very easily be last year's Phillies, with tons of runs scored, but enough allowed to negate that.

 

The 2006 Phillies would have won the NLC. They were unfortunate to have a 97 win team in their division. While 85 wins isn't stellar, it says something about the value of having a good offensive team (even when the pitching is suspect).

 

The Cubs starting pitching is questionable but it is possible that it will be better overall than the Phillies had last year. Decent overall pitching coupled with, what looks to be, a potent offense may equal 85-90 wins for the Cubs.

[jjgman21]

People are giving reasons why the Cubs should be better. They aren't justifying their disdain for somebody thinking the team might not improve as much as they'd hope. You can't just assume that since bad things happened last year, and things appear better right now, that no bad things will happen in 2007. Remember, teams like the Yankees lost Matsui and Sheffield for long stretches, yet managed to improve by 2 games last year.

 

this is the standard? the Cubs have to have an organization that can go out and add Bobby Abreu and his salary when things go bad in order for a ray of optimism enter your world? how did they get by with only Jeter, Arod, Giambi, Posada, Cano, and Damon keeping that ship afloat? they also had alot of pitching injuries like the Cubs. you think the performances of their replacements, while not outstanding, had something to do with keeping them afloat? how did those replacement performances compare with the gaggle of 6+ ERA's the Cubs threw out there? you think maybe the three 197+ IP starters helped them stay afloat?

 

Things could go relatively well this year for the Cubs, and they could still finish right around .500 and well out of the race.

 

so which team to they finish well behind, and is that based on reasonable expectations or a fluke, unpredictable performance by one team?

[jjgman21]

 

I'm going to take this as a pretty blatant attack at me.

 

biased? I can't look at the things people are saying objectively? what, I'm Fox News? I see nobody predicting the Cubs to be outstanding. I see some saying they should be a slight favorite in the division.

 

attack?

 

:roll:

 

I stopped reading after that.

[soapy]

I don't get the outrage. The Cubs were terrible last year people. They could gain 14 wins this year and still be below .500. You really have to be thinking optimistically to even put them at 85 wins and 2nd place. That's an enormous jump, not unheard of, but spectacularly rare.

 

Agreed. What sure things are there on this team aside from Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano? There are a lot of question marks, IMO. Soriano could regress to his 2004-2005 numbers, DeRosa could very easily (some might even argue that it's likely) regress a great deal from 2006. Izturis is a good bet to be bad, injured or both. Jones' numbers were up from his previous two years in 2006 and could easily come back down. Marquis was obscenely bad last year and Lilly isn't exactly a great fit (pitching style wise) for the NL Central. Prior is a huge question mark and who the hell knows what Miller will provide.

 

you see, here's the thing about the pessimism v. optimism thing. I don't think anyone here is overly optimistic. I do think several are overly pessimistic, and it screams at you with posts like this. with the strengths from last year that carry over it's 'regression regression regression.' with the question marks and bad recent past performances it's 'ain't gonna change.'

 

people who do the rational thing, pick the middle ground, see the question marks but also see the opportunities, account for setbacks and regression and potential for improvement, balance out the PT from last year with what will probably happen this year, compare to the other teams in the division, have reason to be slightly optimistic about this team.

 

what also screams at you is the fact that the same people who poopoo on the various projections that show the Cubs scoring over 800 runs this year come so strongly to the defense of predictions that have the Cubs finishing 5th.

 

I also pointed out in my post (the portion you didn't quote) that there are positives carrying over from last year. I specifically noted Murton, Guzman and the bench. Also, I noted that they should definitely be better than last year.

 

I don't expect the Cubs to finish fifth but I wouldn't say it's completely absurd, as some people are. I don't think it's overly pessimistic. I think there are several question marks, as I noted. Both in the starting rotation and in the everyday lineup.

[hardcorecubfan]

WE ARE now on the Cubs media list so don't we get to have a comprehensive media prediction that has equal weight to let's says SI or Rotoworld?

[NCCubFan]

I fully expect the Cubs to be better than 5th place, but my reaction is who cares what the media predicts? Ultimately the race will be decided on the field, not in the newspapers and magazines. It's interesting to discuss predictions, but to me it's nothing to get worked up over.

[A New Era]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. People are assuming 100% health for all but Prior and Wood and no major setbacks. That's foolish. This team could probably win anywhere from 75-85 wins. I'm looking at the upper part of that range. But it's hardly unfair to think more about the lower end.

 

And you're unfairly not accounting for a drastically different team.

 

Lee

Soraino

great hitting coach

great manager

almost entirely different pitching staff (hill, Lilly marquis, possibly Prior, Guzman)

 

You can not rate teams and say "they need to make up so and so games" because the team is drastically different. I might be with you on this if the team had a healthy lee and had the same manager and coaching staff as they did last year. But they don't. They have such a drastically different team aswell. .

[oldstyle81]

Im not worried about the offense at all, baring injuries this will be one of the best offenses in the game

 

 

Seriously the people who claim that this offense isint a lot better are morons

 

Soriano over Slappy?

Sure Soriano wont take many walks but UNLIKE slappy, Soriano can hit for power. pretty much the same OBP but with a huge amount of power

 

Derose over Perez, hairston, womack

Lee even if he is average will give Ramirez many many more RBI's

Barrett will get his

a viable number 2 hitter.

 

a much better bench

 

oh yeah, and no more toothpick chomping airhead who thinks walks just clog the bases. Baker is nothing unless there is a roided up monster on the team. Anyone who thinks this team isint a whole lot better just because Baker isint here to run Perez out there every damn day is idiotic.

[CubFanPhilly]

Let's compare by position:

 

1B - .266/.337/.437/.774 - Lee/Ward should beat that OPS by 100+ points

 

2B - .274/.326/.411/.737 - Expect at least this production if DeRosa reverts to career number, a bump of 50+ points in OPS (particularly OBP) if DeRosa plays closer to 2006 number and Theriot sees some decent PT.

 

SS - .246/.275/.324/.598 - As bad as Izturis' bat is, his career numbers are better than this line. (631 OPS). It's not unreasonable to expect some combination of Izturis/Cedeno/Theriot to bump this OPS by 20-30 points.

 

3B - .282/.340/.544/.884 - ARAM had 592 ABs last year. There's as much reason to expect a small decline (e.g., a DL stint) in 3B production as any improvement. My guess is 0 to -40 points of OPS.

 

C - .287/.341/.473/.814 - I'd expect 50 or 60 more ABs out of Barrett (10-game suspension and DL time), on the other hand, Blanco was not as bad offensively in 2006 as he usually is. Call it a wash.

 

LF - .280/.346/.428/.774 - Murton and Floyd should both improve on this line. My guess is 50+ points of improvement in OPS (mostly coming from SLG).

 

CF - .294/.333/.393/.725 - Even if Soriano reverts to career numbers, he beats this line. Expect at least 75 point of improvement in OPS (almost all SLG).

 

RF - .288/.337/.498/.835 - we might see regression here. If JJ reverts to norm, you might lose 60 points of OPS, but how long does that go on before DeRosa's platooning in RF? Or Pie is brought up? My guess is -30 points of OPS.

 

So overall, while OBP isn't likely to improve nearly as much as the Cubs need it to, the overall bump in OPS could be 250 or more points. That's like replacing Izturis in the lineup with Scott Rolen or Andruw Jones.

 

Pitching?

1 Zambrano 214 IP, 1.29 WHIP, 3.41 ERA

2 Maddux 136, 1.29, 4.69

3 Marshall 125, 1.52, 5.59

4 Hill 99, 1.23, 4.17

5 Marmol 77, 1.69, 6.08

 

Starters overall: 5.19 ERA

Relievers: 4.04 ERA

 

It's not hard to imagine that Zambrano/Lilly/Hill/Marquis/Prior/Miller/Guzman could put up significantly better numbers this year.

 

The roster improvements are enough to get the Cubs to respectable (.500) and in contention (85-90 wins) with some luck.

[Backtobanks]

Let's compare by position:

 

1B - .266/.337/.437/.774 - Lee/Ward should beat that OPS by 100+ points

 

2B - .274/.326/.411/.737 - Expect at least this production if DeRosa reverts to career number, a bump of 50+ points in OPS (particularly OBP) if DeRosa plays closer to 2006 number and Theriot sees some decent PT.

 

SS - .246/.275/.324/.598 - As bad as Izturis' bat is, his career numbers are better than this line. (631 OPS). It's not unreasonable to expect some combination of Izturis/Cedeno/Theriot to bump this OPS by 20-30 points.

 

3B - .282/.340/.544/.884 - ARAM had 592 ABs last year. There's as much reason to expect a small decline (e.g., a DL stint) in 3B production as any improvement. My guess is 0 to -40 points of OPS.

 

C - .287/.341/.473/.814 - I'd expect 50 or 60 more ABs out of Barrett (10-game suspension and DL time), on the other hand, Blanco was not as bad offensively in 2006 as he usually is. Call it a wash.

 

LF - .280/.346/.428/.774 - Murton and Floyd should both improve on this line. My guess is 50+ points of improvement in OPS (mostly coming from SLG).

 

CF - .294/.333/.393/.725 - Even if Soriano reverts to career numbers, he beats this line. Expect at least 75 point of improvement in OPS (almost all SLG).

 

RF - .288/.337/.498/.835 - we might see regression here. If JJ reverts to norm, you might lose 60 points of OPS, but how long does that go on before DeRosa's platooning in RF? Or Pie is brought up? My guess is -30 points of OPS.

 

So overall, while OBP isn't likely to improve nearly as much as the Cubs need it to, the overall bump in OPS could be 250 or more points. That's like replacing Izturis in the lineup with Scott Rolen or Andruw Jones.Pitching?

1 Zambrano 214 IP, 1.29 WHIP, 3.41 ERA

2 Maddux 136, 1.29, 4.69

3 Marshall 125, 1.52, 5.59

4 Hill 99, 1.23, 4.17

5 Marmol 77, 1.69, 6.08

 

Starters overall: 5.19 ERA

Relievers: 4.04 ERA

 

It's not hard to imagine that Zambrano/Lilly/Hill/Marquis/Prior/Miller/Guzman could put up significantly better numbers this year.

 

The roster improvements are enough to get the Cubs to respectable (.500) and in contention (85-90 wins) with some luck.

 

Actually it is much better than replacing Izturis with Rolen or Andruw Jones because it is spread over the whole lineup rather than concentrated in one position in the lineup.

[bhogg]

i think the cubs will win the division because I have a chihuahua named "stitch"

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I picked up a copy of Athlon Sports Baseball, and here are their predictions for the NL Central:

 

1. St. Louis

2. Milwaukee

3. Houston

4. Chicago

5. Cincinnati

6. Pittsburgh

[Sammy Sofa]

I picked up a copy of Athlon Sports Baseball, and here are their predictions for the NL Central:

 

1. St. Louis

2. Milwaukee

3. Houston

4. Chicago

5. Cincinnati

6. Pittsburgh

 

Seems perfectly realistic. I think in that scenario the Cubs and Astros are only 2-3 games apart at the most, and Chicago is probably within 10 games of the Cardinals.

[dew1679666265]

I fully expect the Cubs to be better than 5th place, but my reaction is who cares what the media predicts? Ultimately the race will be decided on the field, not in the newspapers and magazines. It's interesting to discuss predictions, but to me it's nothing to get worked up over.

 

Well, its hard to get worked up over Spring Training games so we have to find something to get worked up over. :)

My view on BA's predictions is that putting us behind Cincinnatti is silly. You have to expect a good bit of bad luck to predict we'll be worse than the Reds. With average bad luck (injuries, poor performance) and no good luck (no expected improvements) we're likely looking at fighting Houston for third.

But, if most of our key players (Soriano, Lee, Ramirez, Z, etc) are healthy and performing and we get a little luck out of the others, I see no reason to think this team can't win 84-87 games which in this pitiful division puts us first or second.

If we get a lot of good luck (Izturis has a breakout year, Soriano and Lee both match their career highs, etc), 90+ is very possible.

My money is on 84-87 wins and fighting the Brewers and Cards for first in a terrible division.

[cheapseats]

Nate Silver, the creator of PECOTA, picks the Cubs to finish first in the NL Central.

 

Subscription required:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6023

[Exile on Waveland]

I picked up a copy of Athlon Sports Baseball, and here are their predictions for the NL Central:

 

1. St. Louis

2. Milwaukee

3. Houston

4. Chicago

5. Cincinnati

6. Pittsburgh

 

It's funny, I look at that prediction and think it's realistic -- even though I expect a higher finish. But, still, I find fifth place to be very pessimistic. I guess mainly because the top three or four teams are likely to be bunched very closely.