Playoff droughts and the slow ascent

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Please pardon the title, the character limitations made it hard to make the topic clear.

 

The Cubs haven't made the playoffs since 2008, and we're in Year 2 of that drought under Theo. One point that you see pop up quite a bit is the idea that the team needs to be taking steps forward in terms of wins and losses. It helps in a variety of ways, from making the team a more attractive FA destination, to keeping fan morale high, to also being a statistical indicator that the team is nearing a break-through that will send them to the playoffs. With that in mind, I took a look at teams that had made the playoffs since 2007 after at least 3 years of drought.

 

http://i.imgur.com/LTmNuo2.png

 

How to read the chart. Year 1 would be 3 years before the playoff appearance, Year 3 the year before the playoff appearance, etc. Additional playoff appearances are for the 3 years following the first appearance. 2013 is projected based on current standings.

 

A few things I noticed after compiling this:

 

- Lots of playoff teams fit this profile. 26% since 2007, and that number would seem more likely to go up with the extra wild card.

 

- The leap that teams make is a huge one. An average of 16 wins across 13 different instances in 6 years is enough for me to be pretty skeptical of the "how do they get from X wins to a playoff team" arguments that come about.

 

- Teams remained competitive in the seasons that followed their leap. 17 playoff appearances out of a possible 32, 53%.

 

- The size of the leap didn't have much impact on following playoff appearances. Teams who had a leap of less than 10 wins were 8 for 12 (67%), teams with a leap of 15 wins or less were 10 of 21 (48%), and teams with a greater than 15 win leap were 6 of 11 (55%).

 

 

There's not a lot of actionable things to take from this, aside from maybe the idea that teams should always try to be making the next couple years better, because the threshold to being "ready to contend" isn't one that seems to exist as a win count. How that applies to the Cubs is probably a rorshach test for your feelings on the current FO, which is nice I guess since it means I'm not telling anyone they're wrong. Except those of you who say "I just don't see how this team gets to 85-90 wins" during the offseason. You're not right.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Isn't this a gigantic selection bias?

[Guest]

I don't think so, unless you're trying to draw a very different conclusion.

[pitchcs]

Hmm, very interesting. Nice work on the chart and analysis.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't think so, unless you're trying to draw a very different conclusion.

 

You were trying to measure whether "being a statistical indicator that the team is nearing a break-through that will send them to the playoffs."

 

You selected a sample of teams made up entirely of those who made the playoffs.

[Guest]

I don't think so, unless you're trying to draw a very different conclusion.

 

You were trying to measure whether "being a statistical indicator that the team is nearing a break-through that will send them to the playoffs."

 

You selected a sample of teams made up entirely of those who made the playoffs.

 

Just because he mentioned that among the reasons people like to see incremental increases from year to year doesn't mean he was trying to measure that.

[Guest]

Right. It's not "the Cubs have a win count in common with all these playoff teams so they're going to make the playoffs", it's "a good number of playoff teams come from all types of winning percentages, so they're always 'ready' to make that jump". It's the opposite of the "well they aren't going to win this year so why sign Player X for 3-4 years?" as well as "well they won X games last year, how are they reasonably going to get to X+Y next year?"

[UMFan83]

I love TTs threads

[jersey cubs fan]

26% is a lot?

 

So every year, 2.5 teams can be expected to go from sucking to the playoffs?

 

 

That doesn't say good things about the Cubs chances to make a leap.

[Guest]

26% is a lot?

 

So every year, 2.5 teams can be expected to go from sucking to the playoffs?

 

 

That doesn't say good things about the Cubs chances to make a leap.

 

I certainly wouldn't have guessed that there's consistently been 2+ teams in the playoffs there for the first time in 4+ years. Maybe I underestimated the parity and difficulty of making the playoffs, at least prior to the 2nd wild card.

[dew1679666265]

Except those of you who say "I just don't see how this team gets to 85-90 wins" during the offseason. You're not right.

 

Excellent analysis. The only thing I might disagree with (and it may just be a context thing) is that people who question whether we can make the jump are automatically wrong.

 

If they're saying it's not possible to make that jump in wins, I agree they're wrong, but if the comment is "I don't see the right players in FA to make the jump," I think there's still merit to that, even after your very good post.

 

That's the really good thing about our FO, though. If the players are out there, they'll identify them (as long as they're not priced out of our range) and your analysis proves the jump can be made with the right moves.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Can a team go from 70 wins to 90 in an offseason? Absolutely.

 

Are the 2014 Cubs poised to do that? I have a hard time seeing it. We're not graduating anyone of significance and we don't have a ton of money to spend, not to mention a weak FA class.

[Guest]

Can a team go from 70 wins to 90 in an offseason? Absolutely.

 

Are the 2014 Cubs poised to do that? I have a hard time seeing it. We're not graduating anyone of significance and we don't have a ton of money to spend, not to mention a weak FA class.

Color me an optimist.

 

Growth from Castro + Rizzo + Castillo would help a lot as a foundation. Replace Barney's offense so far this year with a bit of a breakout from Alcantara. Swap Soriano for Choo. Add in the next round of Maholm & Feldman's. Add a competent bullpen.

 

I could see 85+ wins for that team.

[weis21]

Can a team go from 70 wins to 90 in an offseason? Absolutely.

 

Are the 2014 Cubs poised to do that? I have a hard time seeing it. We're not graduating anyone of significance and we don't have a ton of money to spend, not to mention a weak FA class.

Not saying you are wrong - and maybe I've missed something that has been said - but how do we know they don't have the money to be spent? I guess history would lead us to believe they wont necessarily break the bank on 2014 for a few reasons, but I've not heard anything specific to spending limitations. Regardless, like you said, the talent available is underwhelming. I could see them picking up somebody like a Choo or Ellsbury, though.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Not saying you are wrong - and maybe I've missed something that has been said - but how do we know they don't have the money to be spent? I guess history would lead us to believe they wont necessarily break the bank on 2014 for a few reasons, but I've not heard anything specific to spending limitations. Regardless, like you said, the talent available is underwhelming. I could see them picking up somebody like a Choo or Ellsbury, though.

 

A combination of Epstein saying they haven't left any money on the table in recent years and the fact that revenues aren't going up considerably with the way attendance is going (lower attendance should roughly cancel out the new TV money everyone's getting).

 

We won't really know until they get there, but I'm assuming that we'll get roughly the same payroll next year. Maybe a little higher, maybe a little lower (if the Wrigley renovations bite into the available cash).

 

Enough to replace or re-sign Garza, buy another round of undervalued pitching, and sign one big-name position player like Choo or Ellsbury. I could also seeing us just get shut out of the Choo/Ellsbury tier. There's only a few of those, and a lot of teams will have money.

[USSoccer]

Can a team go from 70 wins to 90 in an offseason? Absolutely.

 

Are the 2014 Cubs poised to do that? I have a hard time seeing it. We're not graduating anyone of significance and we don't have a ton of money to spend, not to mention a weak FA class.

Color me an optimist.

 

Growth from Castro + Rizzo + Castillo would help a lot as a foundation. Replace Barney's offense so far this year with a bit of a breakout from Alcantara. Swap Soriano for Choo. Add in the next round of Maholm & Feldman's. Add a competent bullpen.

 

I could see 85+ wins for that team.

 

Are we talking about growth from Castro relative to where we all though he was in April, or growth from where he is now? Because if it's the latter, that is only an upgrade from godawful to okay.

[Backtobanks]

Can a team go from 70 wins to 90 in an offseason? Absolutely.

 

Are the 2014 Cubs poised to do that? I have a hard time seeing it. We're not graduating anyone of significance and we don't have a ton of money to spend, not to mention a weak FA class.

Color me an optimist.

 

Growth from Castro + Rizzo + Castillo would help a lot as a foundation. Replace Barney's offense so far this year with a bit of a breakout from Alcantara. Swap Soriano for Choo. Add in the next round of Maholm & Feldman's. Add a competent bullpen.

 

I could see 85+ wins for that team.

 

I do think you are being pretty optimistic. Growth from the three you mentioned certainly would help, but can Theo find another Maholm/Feldman? Will they find a buyer for Soriano? Will they be able to outbid others for Choo? Will Scherholtz/Wood/Sweeney settle back to their norms?

[dew1679666265]

can Theo find another Maholm/Feldman?

 

He's been here for 2 offseasons and found one each offseason. I'd say just looking at his Cubs track record alone says yes and expanding it to the Boston track record only helps.

 

Will they find a buyer for Soriano?

 

This has as much to do with other GMs as it does Theo, but I tend to think it's pretty likely that Theo will be able to. There was too much smoke last offseason to think there's simply no interest in Soriano out there, it's just whether the offers match our demands. That's somewhat a question only Theo can answer, but I'd guess there will be more urgency to deal him this year.

 

Will they be able to outbid others for Choo?

 

This is 100% on Ricketts. If he allows the money to be spent and Theo values Choo enough, yes. If Ricketts doesn't make the cash available, no. Unless Choo has non-monetary motivations, if the Cubs (read, Ricketts) want him bad enough, then we can outbid other teams for him.

 

Will Scherholtz/Wood/Sweeney settle back to their norms?

 

Probably, but I trust Theo enough to believe he can manipulate the roster enough to get a few guys who can outperform their norms for a season.

 

I question whether the totality of Tim's scenario would play out that way, but each individual aspect of it isn't particularly far-fetched. The thing I'm worried about the most, probably, is getting everything to work together to net Choo.

[Backtobanks]

can Theo find another Maholm/Feldman?

 

He's been here for 2 offseasons and found one each offseason. I'd say just looking at his Cubs track record alone says yes and expanding it to the Boston track record only helps.

 

Will they find a buyer for Soriano?

 

This has as much to do with other GMs as it does Theo, but I tend to think it's pretty likely that Theo will be able to. There was too much smoke last offseason to think there's simply no interest in Soriano out there, it's just whether the offers match our demands. That's somewhat a question only Theo can answer, but I'd guess there will be more urgency to deal him this year.

 

Will they be able to outbid others for Choo?

 

This is 100% on Ricketts. If he allows the money to be spent and Theo values Choo enough, yes. If Ricketts doesn't make the cash available, no. Unless Choo has non-monetary motivations, if the Cubs (read, Ricketts) want him bad enough, then we can outbid other teams for him.

 

Will Scherholtz/Wood/Sweeney settle back to their norms?

 

Probably, but I trust Theo enough to believe he can manipulate the roster enough to get a few guys who can outperform their norms for a season.

 

I question whether the totality of Tim's scenario would play out that way, but each individual aspect of it isn't particularly far-fetched. The thing I'm worried about the most, probably, is getting everything to work together to net Choo.

 

Even if all of these happen, it's still pretty optimistic to think that they could win 85 games. Right now hey're on a pace for 66 wins and that's before any possible trades of Garza, Soriano, DeJesus, Gregg, etc.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There's a ton of variance in individual performance each year. If you aren't Astros'-level bad, then sure there's always a chance that a bunch of your players turn in big seasons and you win a lot more games than might be reasonably expected.

 

As far as finding value pitching, volume helps a lot.

 

He was able to find Maholm and Camp, but in order to get those we had to suffer through Volstad, Corpas and Castillo.

 

This year we got Feldman, Villanueva and Gregg, but they came from the same process that gave us Baker, Fujikawa, Lim, Takahashi and Rondon.

 

It's hard to imagine them (or anyone) being able to hit at a high enough rate to fill all the holes we have in our pitching next year without having to suffer through a ton of misses as well, and the misses can sink seasons.

[Guest]

There's a ton of variance in individual performance each year. If you aren't Astros'-level bad, then sure there's always a chance that a bunch of your players turn in big seasons and you win a lot more games than might be reasonably expected.

 

As far as finding value pitching, volume helps a lot.

 

He was able to find Maholm and Camp, but in order to get those we had to suffer through Volstad, Corpas and Castillo.

 

This year we got Feldman, Villanueva and Gregg, but they came from the same process that gave us Baker, Fujikawa, Lim, Takahashi and Rondon.

 

It's hard to imagine them (or anyone) being able to hit at a high enough rate to fill all the holes we have in our pitching next year without having to suffer through a ton of misses as well, and the misses can sink seasons.

 

I don't see Maholm as a name that goes in the Camp/Volstad/Corpas/Castillo pile... more like the Feldman/Baker/Villanueva pile. They're 3/4 on those guys and the 4th guy was hurt, so what has happened isn't a big shock.

[Guest]

Not sure why you'd group starters and relievers together like that, they're planned for and acquired in very different ways.

 

I think they've demonstrated a pretty clear ability to get value from SP. Maholm, Feldman, Villanueva, and targeting Wood is a pretty strong tale of success for 2 seasons. Baker hasn't pitched which looks like a miss(though they obviously had plenty of contingency), and Volstad was bad(although I think it's fair to consider him less of a target and more of a flyer they grabbed when dumping Z), but I'm not at all worried about the ability to put together a competent rotation.

 

The bullpen has far less certainty. Both in the sense that it's extremely volatile and in the sense that the front office hasn't exactly had a ton of success in adding good relievers. It may not be something that's realistically possible without more home grown talent, a quick glance at the team WPA leaders doesn't show all that many FAs or cast-offs. This is why I'm very interested to see how they can make the '14 pen better at the '13 deadline. Adding a couple promising options would go a long way to partner with Russell and hopefully a couple from the current unproven crop(Vizcaino/Parker/Bowden).

[jersey cubs fan]

There's a ton of variance in individual performance each year. If you aren't Astros'-level bad, then sure there's always a chance that a bunch of your players turn in big seasons and you win a lot more games than might be reasonably expected.

 

As far as finding value pitching, volume helps a lot.

 

He was able to find Maholm and Camp, but in order to get those we had to suffer through Volstad, Corpas and Castillo.

 

This year we got Feldman, Villanueva and Gregg, but they came from the same process that gave us Baker, Fujikawa, Lim, Takahashi and Rondon.

 

It's hard to imagine them (or anyone) being able to hit at a high enough rate to fill all the holes we have in our pitching next year without having to suffer through a ton of misses as well, and the misses can sink seasons.

 

I don't see Maholm as a name that goes in the Camp/Volstad/Corpas/Castillo pile... more like the Feldman/Baker/Villanueva pile. They're 3/4 on those guys and the 4th guy was hurt, so what has happened isn't a big shock.

 

Huh?

 

He didn't put Maholm in the Volstad pile. He equated him to Feldman, as a guy they hit on.

[Guest]

There's a ton of variance in individual performance each year. If you aren't Astros'-level bad, then sure there's always a chance that a bunch of your players turn in big seasons and you win a lot more games than might be reasonably expected.

 

As far as finding value pitching, volume helps a lot.

 

He was able to find Maholm and Camp, but in order to get those we had to suffer through Volstad, Corpas and Castillo.

This year we got Feldman, Villanueva and Gregg, but they came from the same process that gave us Baker, Fujikawa, Lim, Takahashi and Rondon.

 

It's hard to imagine them (or anyone) being able to hit at a high enough rate to fill all the holes we have in our pitching next year without having to suffer through a ton of misses as well, and the misses can sink seasons.

 

I don't see Maholm as a name that goes in the Camp/Volstad/Corpas/Castillo pile... more like the Feldman/Baker/Villanueva pile. They're 3/4 on those guys and the 4th guy was hurt, so what has happened isn't a big shock.

 

Huh?

 

He didn't put Maholm in the Volstad pile. He equated him to Feldman, as a guy they hit on.

 

I'm referring to putting them in the same group of acquisitions, not where they go in terms of whether they were hits or misses.

 

The acquisition of Maholm was much more like Feldman, Baker, and Villanueva than it was those scrap heap relievers (aside from Fujikawa) he's talking about and Volstad, who, like TT said, was basically a guy they took a flyer on in a trade. The hit rate on that first group is much higher than when you throw all that other hot garbage in.

[Guest]

He was segmenting by year.