Projecting the 2016 Cubs

[Cubswin11]

As far as the two oldest starters, I'm way more optimistic about Zobrist than Hammel.

Bold take

[David]

I lack no optimism for Hammel being an above average 5th starter. He might even be a really good one.

[jersey cubs fan]

I lack no optimism for Hammel being an above average 5th starter. He might even be a really good one.

5th starter isn't a position

 

 

he's a starting pitcher.

[David]

I lack no optimism for Hammel being an above average 5th starter. He might even be a really good one.

5th starter isn't a position

 

 

he's a starting pitcher.

 

He's the 5th best starting pitcher. He does not need to be nor should he be held to the same standard as the 1st best or 2nd best starting pitchers. This shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

[jersey cubs fan]

I lack no optimism for Hammel being an above average 5th starter. He might even be a really good one.

5th starter isn't a position

 

 

he's a starting pitcher.

 

He's the 5th best starting pitcher. He does not need to be nor should he be held to the same standard as the 1st best or 2nd best starting pitchers. This shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

no

 

he's a starting pitcher. He's held to the standard of other starting pitchers, not other 5th starters. He should be judged against all starting pitchers.

[Cubswin11]

I lack no optimism for Hammel being an above average 5th starter. He might even be a really good one.

I agree, I think Hammel will be closer to 1st half Hammel last year than 2nd half Hammel last year. Which is a really horsefeathering good 5th starter.

[David]

5th starter isn't a position

 

 

he's a starting pitcher.

 

He's the 5th best starting pitcher. He does not need to be nor should he be held to the same standard as the 1st best or 2nd best starting pitchers. This shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

no

 

he's a starting pitcher. He's held to the standard of other starting pitchers, not other 5th starters. He should be judged against all starting pitchers.

Never stop being goony

[Banedon]

 

He's the 5th best starting pitcher. He does not need to be nor should he be held to the same standard as the 1st best or 2nd best starting pitchers. This shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

no

 

he's a starting pitcher. He's held to the standard of other starting pitchers, not other 5th starters. He should be judged against all starting pitchers.

Never stop being goony

 

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lluda4XRCS1qglh4xo1_400.gif

[bukie]

24 teams into the Fangraphs ZiPS projection, here is the WAR projection comparison:

 

Team                 C 1B 2B 3B SS LF CF RF DH HIT SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP PEN PITCH Total
Atlanta Braves       0  4  2  0  2  1  2  1     12   3   2   1   1   1  8   2    10   22
Kansas City Royals   3  2  0  3  2  3  4  2  2  21   3   2   2   1   0  8   3    11   32
Toronto Blue Jays    4  1  0  7  4  1  3  4  3  27   2   2   2   1   1  8   3    11   38
Philadelphia Phillie 2 -1  1  2  1  1  3  2     11   2   1   1   0   0  4   2     6   17
Cincinnati Reds      2  5  2  2  2  2  2  2     19   3   2   2   2   1 10   2    12   31
Pittsburgh Pirates   3  1  2  3  1  4  6  2     22   4   4   1   1   1 11   4    15   37
Texas Rangers        2  1  3  4  2  0  1  2  1  16   4   3   1   1   1 10   3    13   29
New York Yankees     4  2  2  3  2  2  2  0  2  19   3   3   2   2   0 10   5    15   34
Baltimore Orioles    2  1  2  6  1  1  4 -1 -1  15   2   2   2   1   1  8   4    12   27
Seattle Mariners     2  1  4  4  2  1  3  3  3  23   5   2   1   1   1 10   2    12   35
Boston Red Sox       2  2  3  1  3  1  3  5  2  22   5   2   2   2   1 12   4    16   38
Chicago Cubs         2  5  3  6  3  3  5  1     28   5   5   3   3   2 18   4    22   50
Cleveland Indians    3  1  3  1  4  3  1  2  2  20   4   4   3   1   0 12   3    15   35
Arizona Diamondbacks 2  5  1  2  2  3  4  0     19   5   3   2   2   1 13   2    15   34
Minnesota Twins      2  2  3  2  2  3  3  1  2  20   2   2   1   1   1  7   3    10   30
San Diego Padres     4  2  2  2  1  2  1  1     15   3   3   2   1  -1  8   3    11   26
New York Mets        4  3  3  3  2  3  3  3     24   4   4   3   2   1 14   2    16   40
Houston Astros       3  1  4  3  5  3  3  3  1  26   5   3   3   2   1 14   4    18   44
Los Angeles Dodgers  4  3  1  3  4  4  3  4     26   8   3   3   2   1 17   3    20   46
Detroit Tigers       3  4  4  2  2  4  1  4  1  25   3   3   2   1   0  9   3    12   37
St. Louis Cardinals  4  1  2  4  3  2  2  3     21   4   3   3   3   2 15   4    19   40
San Francisco Giants 8  3  3  4  4  0  2  2     26   5   4   3   1   0 13   2    15   41
Washington Nationals 2  1  2  3  1  1  2  7     19   6   5   3   2   2 18   4    22   41
Chicago White Sox    3  3  2  4  2  1  3  0  1  19   6   4   3   1   1 15   4    19   38

[Banedon]

 

lol he's actually writing that?

 

pls just stop acknowledging that that idiot exists

 

I don't even follow him. The Watt guy mentioned it was coming tomorrow even though he didn't agree with it. That ones just so stupid I had to bring it up lol. But yeah, completely ignoring the [expletive] is the best solution.

 

http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2016/01/27/the-case-for-not-extending-theo-epstein/

 

welp, here it is

 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TommyECook/status/692785156281757696[/tweet]

[Sammy Sofa]

Everyone in the comment section praising it sounds like a huge pile of sycophantic buttholes. "Your stupid idea is so well-written I can't help but admire it!"

[David]

Everyone in the comment section praising it sounds like a huge pile of sycophantic buttholes. "Your stupid idea is so well-written I can't help but admire it!"

 

Yep.

 

NEVER DISMISS IDEAS OUT OF HAND EVEN IF THEY'RE TERRIBLE! GIVE THEM ALL SOME THOUGHT!

[Cubswin11]

Everyone in the comment section praising it sounds like a huge pile of sycophantic buttholes. "Your stupid idea is so well-written I can't help but admire it!"

Yeah, it's so weird. Just because an opinion/idea is based off of another idea or cites an article doesn't mean it can't be a really horsefeathering dumb opinion/idea that should be shamed and mocked.

[David]

Vegas has the Cubs over under set at 89

[ChiCubsFan]

Vegas has the Cubs over under set at 89

 

How is this not free money?

[Cubswin11]

Vegas has the Cubs over under set at 89

I'd be shocked if that isn't bet up to 91-92 by the start of the year. Could even see if there in a few weeks.

[soccer10k]

Vegas has the Cubs over under set at 89

 

Surprised it's not in the 91-93 range. Not sure what Vegas was last year but the Nationals were 93.5 online and the Dodgers were 92.5.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Vegas has the Cubs over under set at 89

 

Surprised it's not in the 91-93 range. Not sure what Vegas was last year but the Nationals were 93.5 online and the Dodgers were 92.5.

I'm putting money on the over. And the under on the Royals.

[David]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

USA Today predicting 101 wins for the Cubs

 

i'd be really horsefeathering annoyed if we were a 101 win team and had to wait until the final week to clinch our division

 

also if that freaking cardinal team wins 97 games

[NOLA]

Seriously, is there a plausible rationale for the Cards winning 97, or is it just because some pixie dust nonsense? I just don't see how it happens unless absolutely everything goes perfectly, i.e. health, no sophomore slumps.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

"Semi-scientific?" I would love to see the algorithm that would lead to the White Sox having more wins than the Dodgers.

[Brian707]

Vegas has the Cubs over under set at 89

 

How is this not free money?

 

 

Only one team is higher the Giants at 90.

 

As was said I think it will get bet up to 91 or so.

[David]

i still don't understand why the bookmakers are so high on SF. they opened the offseason as the WS favorites, IIRC.

 

do they think the betting public is gonna buy into the even numbered year "trend" THAT much?

[Brian707]

i still don't understand why the bookmakers are so high on SF. they opened the offseason as the WS favorites, IIRC.

 

do they think the betting public is gonna buy into the even numbered year "trend" THAT much?

 

 

Could be part of it. In hockey, the Kings have been bet up in even years while the Hawks in odd years since 2012.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"Semi-scientific?" I would love to see the algorithm that would lead to the White Sox having more wins than the Dodgers.

 

I will play devil's advocate. If you combined the Dodgers and White Sox, the White Sox could easily have 3 of the top 4 starters and the top 2 position players. They also play in a less competitive division.

 

That said I don't really think it's all that likely to happen, the Sox still have a gaping hole or two and no depth, but I do think the collapse(maybe not collapse, but large disppointment) risk is higher for the Dodgers than is generally thought.