Projecting the 2016 Cubs

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

More projection porn: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415

[Guest]

sooo it seems like that lull kyle talked about with people kind of sleeping on just how good we are didn't last very long

[Guest]

Just noticed that our FG depth chart projections don't have Warren on the SP depth chart at all...just a 0.3 win relief contribution in 40 innings. we obviously can't nitpick this without nitpicking everything, but i'd say it's pretty safe to say that's off. he should be in that SP chart ahead of wood, beeler, edwards, and jokisch.

[Guest]

Apparently, the Cubs odds to win a WS in the next two years in Vegas are set at 2.5 to 1 right now. That might be one of the worst bets I've heard of in a sportsbook.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Apparently, the Cubs odds to win a WS in the next two years in Vegas are set at 2.5 to 1 right now. That might be one of the worst bets I've heard of in a sportsbook.

The only way to bet on the Cubs and get anything approaching positive EV is on over-under win totals (as the Vegas tourists from Chicago don't bet on lines like that...I took the over on the Cubs last year, and the under on the Reds)

[Guest]

Apparently, the Cubs odds to win a WS in the next two years in Vegas are set at 2.5 to 1 right now. That might be one of the worst bets I've heard of in a sportsbook.

The only way to bet on the Cubs and get anything approaching positive EV is on over-under win totals (as the Vegas tourists from Chicago don't bet on lines like that...I took the over on the Cubs last year, and the under on the Reds)

 

yeah. the 6.5-1 being offered right now is at least close to neutral EV, which is surprising.

[Guest]

sooo it seems like that lull kyle talked about with people kind of sleeping on just how good we are didn't last very long

 

ok maybe not

 

Mike (Chicago)

 

 

Is playing Heyward in CF wasting money? Has Soler actually played enough RF to be sure he's a poor fielder? Is doubling down on WAR darlings Zobrist and Heyward kind of a challenge to the old guard? isn't expecting any team to improve on 97 wins a fool's errand? it's not all about talent it's about health and luck and a lot broke the Cubs' way, so 97 is a lofty ideal anyway?

David Schoenfield (1:17 PM)

 

 

Maybe the Cubs think he will be a +10 or 15 defender out there. I'm skeptical about that, but maybe for a couple years he'll be above average. As for them getting better, you're right: The projection systems probably have them around 92-94 wins right now. You just don't pick a team to win 97 to 100 games. Rizzo, Russell, Castro, Bryant, Coghlan, Fowler all played 142 games last year, so they had no injuries from their core players (I think Montero had a short DL stint). They had four starters make 30 starts. Odds are they don't have the same health, although they are building solid depth.

 

His last sentence in bold is true, which is why this is all so absurd.

 

still, it's only one projection system. i'm pretty eager to see where the others have us.

[minnesotacubsfan]

How does WAR account for health, or does it at all?

[SABR Gamer]

How does WAR account for health, or does it at all?

 

WAR can't go up if you don't play*, so being injured prevents you from accumulating more. Stanton would be putting up higher WARs if he was more durable.

 

ETA: *thanks David

Edited December 15, 2015 by New York Cubs Fan

[Rex Buckingham]

WAR can definitely go down if you play poorly. However, assuming good health and good play it will go up of course.

[Guest]

Because of the context of what's being talked about in this thread, I'm assuming he didn't literally mean WAR but meant these projections and whether they accounted for health in some way.

 

Not really, though they do set different amounts of PAs for different players based on their history of playing time, roster fit/place on depth chart, etc. Beyond that, as far as how they forecast playing time, there's no way to really predict who is going to be hurt.

[SABR Gamer]

WAR can definitely go down if you play poorly. However, assuming good health and good play it will go up of course.

 

Yeah, if you play like crap it'll go down, but if you're a positive WAR player, maintaining your performance over more games will make it go up.

[Guest]

WAR can definitely go down if you play poorly. However, assuming good health and good play it will go up of course.

 

Yeah, if you play like crap it'll go down, but if you're a positive WAR player, maintaining your performance over more games will make it go up.

 

I think he was taking issue with your wording. "WAR can only go up if you play"

 

I guess it should technically be, "WAR can go up only if you play." Or "WAR can't go up if you don't play" would more or else make the same point.

[SABR Gamer]

Because of the context of what's being talked about in this thread, I'm assuming he didn't literally mean WAR but meant these projections and whether they accounted for health in some way.

 

Not really, though they do set different amounts of PAs for different players based on their history of playing time, roster fit/place on depth chart, etc. Beyond that, as far as how they forecast playing time, there's no way to really predict who is going to be hurt.

 

Projections are based on past performance, so wouldn't a player with poor durability have that already built in as a feature of the projection? I know some of the projections factor that in at least, unlike I think Steamer which gives everyone 600 PA.

[SABR Gamer]

WAR can definitely go down if you play poorly. However, assuming good health and good play it will go up of course.

 

Yeah, if you play like crap it'll go down, but if you're a positive WAR player, maintaining your performance over more games will make it go up.

 

I think he was taking issue with your wording. "WAR can only go up if you play"

 

I guess it should technically be, "WAR can go up only if you play." Or "WAR can't go up if you don't play" would more or else make the same point.

 

Yeah, I worded it poorly.

[Guest]

Because of the context of what's being talked about in this thread, I'm assuming he didn't literally mean WAR but meant these projections and whether they accounted for health in some way.

 

Not really, though they do set different amounts of PAs for different players based on their history of playing time, roster fit/place on depth chart, etc. Beyond that, as far as how they forecast playing time, there's no way to really predict who is going to be hurt.

 

Projections are based on past performance, so wouldn't a player with poor durability have that already built in as a feature of the projection? I know some of the projections factor that in at least, unlike I think Steamer which gives everyone 600 PA.

 

the FG depth charts are based on STEAMER (but have playing time allocated differently to everyone)

 

I don't really know how much of x, y, or z, goes into how they dole out the PAs on those, though.

[Guest]

[expletive] fell asleep earlier while watching TV. now i'm gonna be up all damn night.

 

someone on realgm says baseball prospectus has the Cubs projected at 101 wins.

 

Anyone have a sub that can confirm this?

[spaincubsfan]

Because of the context of what's being talked about in this thread, I'm assuming he didn't literally mean WAR but meant these projections and whether they accounted for health in some way.

 

Not really, though they do set different amounts of PAs for different players based on their history of playing time, roster fit/place on depth chart, etc. Beyond that, as far as how they forecast playing time, there's no way to really predict who is going to be hurt.

 

Projections are based on past performance, so wouldn't a player with poor durability have that already built in as a feature of the projection? I know some of the projections factor that in at least, unlike I think Steamer which gives everyone 600 PA.

 

the FG depth charts are based on STEAMER (but have playing time allocated differently to everyone)

 

I don't really know how much of x, y, or z, goes into how they dole out the PAs on those, though.

 

Hey all, new kid on the block. I think Heyward is projected to give us a total of 6-7 WAR which will be at 50 wins above replacement total. I am no saber metric geek but am trying to learn.

[Guest]

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/

[JennieGarthAlgar]

Opening Day lineup guess:

 

CF Heyward

RF Soler

1B Rizzo

3B Bryant

DH Schwarber

2B Zobrist

C Montero

LF Coghlan

SS Russell

[weis21]

Opening Day lineup guess:

 

CF Heyward

RF Soler

1B Rizzo

3B Bryant

DH Schwarber

2B Zobrist

C Montero

LF Coghlan

SS Russell

 

I'm thinking Zobrist will be higher - my best shot:

 

CF Heyward

2B Zobrist

1B Rizzo

LF Schwarber

3B Bryant

RF Soler

DH Baez

C Montero

SS Russell

 

God that's fun to write (and if Schwarber is DH and it's Coghlan in LF that's fine - whatever)

[JennieGarthAlgar]

Yeah, I guess for opening day I could see Joe stacking both new guys at the top. I just think eventually they'll get split up. Spread some contact around, get Soler to see some pitches.

[Cubswin11]

Opening Day lineup guess:

 

CF Heyward

RF Soler

1B Rizzo

3B Bryant

DH Schwarber

2B Zobrist

C Montero

LF Coghlan

SS Russell

I think these are the starters, unless there's a trade. I think Soler and Zobrist will be flipped there though. We'll presumably be facing Garrett Richards (RHP) so I think Coghlan starts over Javy and we go for the better defense in the OF.

[sneakypower]

i think i saw Joe say he wanted to go Zobrist-Heyward 1-2 but that might've been a lucid dream

 

not my favorite permutation but that'd set it up probably like

 

Zobrist 2B

Heyward CF

Rizzo 1B

Bryant 3B

Schwarber DH

Soler RF

Coghlan LF

Montero C

Russell SS

[Guest]

Think this'll be the most used lineup early on...things can and probably will change as we see who breaks out/has a bad year/etc.

 

2B - Zobrist

CF - Heyward

1B - Rizzo

3B - Bryant

LF - Schwarber

RF - Soler

C - Montero

P

SS - Russell