Projecting the 2016 Cubs

[BrockLanders]

Cubs, Cardinals and White Sox absurdly high. Way too low on Oakland. Awful projections, obviously.

 

If your projections are that far off the betting market, they're probably not very good.

[David]

Cubs, Cardinals and White Sox absurdly high. Way too low on Oakland. Awful projections, obviously.

 

If your projections are that far off the betting market, they're probably not very good.

 

Cubs aren't THAT absurdly high. That's just about where they'd be with modest positive variance. Or, better stated, if it's ever not crazy to predict 101 wins for a team, this Cubs roster is as fitting as any. It'd be a more shocking to see the Cardinals win 97, though.

 

In their defense, if you read what they wrote along with them, they're just for fun guesses that they threw some arbitrary "analysis" into. They're not beholden to erring on the safe/conservative side like projection models. They're just attempting educated guesses at who will have what sort of variance.

 

As for the betting market, the bookmakers are off on the Cubs by around 5-6 games (conservatively) compared to most projection models.

[UMFan83]

That wouldn't be a bad scenario for the Cubs. Dodgers and Pirates would have to play a WC2 tiebreaker and then have to turn around and play the WC game before facing us.

[Cubswin11]

With so many NL teams throwing out bad rosters and trying to lose I could see inflated win totals for the top 5-7ish teams in the NL this year which makes me think the 101 shouldn't be all that of a surprise or even the cardinals in the 90s (though Istill think that's high for them).

[BrockLanders]

Or, better stated, if it's ever not crazy to predict 101 wins for a team, this Cubs roster is as fitting as any.

 

It is crazy to ever expect a team to win 101 games on average.

 

In their defense, if you read what they wrote along with them, they're just for fun guesses that they threw some arbitrary "analysis" into. They're not beholden to erring on the safe/conservative side like projection models. They're just attempting educated guesses at who will have what sort of variance.

 

Fair enough. Wish they would have called them predictions instead of projections.

 

As for the betting market, the bookmakers are off on the Cubs by around 5-6 games (conservatively) compared to most projection models.

 

The opening numbers aren't that important, it's more telling to see how the win totals close. When casinos/offshore places initially open markets, the limits are very low. As we get closer to opening day, limits will rise and lines will move. I'm guessing the Cubs are around 91 wins by the time things close. Personally I think a reasonable projection is in the low 90's but ymmv.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

"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.

 

Yeah. I can see all that. But, I have a hard time believing any projection system would output the White Sox with more wins than the Dodgers. I just don't think there were any stats or data used at all in that thing. Not that it is going to be wrong. But, it seems more like some person just picked everything out of their mind.

[Banedon]

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2016/02/cubs-spring-training-pics/#image/1

 

Arguello with a bunch of ST pics

 

Some of those aren't watermarked. Go post them on twitter, people!

[David]

Is PECOTA still broken?

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

[apete6]

If the Cubs win 101 games and lose to a 90 win White Sox team in the World Series, I seriously don't know what I'd do. Mass murder is probably not 100% out of the picture.

[BrockLanders]

pecota has a crush on the rays

[Derwood]

pecota has a crush on the rays

 

And hates the Royals, it seems

[David]

pecota has a crush on the rays

 

And hates the Royals, it seems

 

projection systems have a blind spot for what they've done with their bullpen

[Transmogrified Tiger]

pecota has a crush on the rays

 

And hates the Royals, it seems

 

projection systems have a blind spot for what they've done with their bullpen

 

They also project to be pretty easily below average at 4 of 9 lineup spots and like 3 of 5 rotation spots. They have a little bit of the plexiglass effect going on with several of their hitters(especially Cain) that will probably end up being pessimistic, but they aren't an especially good team.

[David]

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/68235/ranking-the-teams-6-through-1-3

 

1. Chicago Cubs

 

Big offseason moves: Signed OF Jason Heyward; signed 2B Ben Zobrist; signed RHP John Lackey; traded IF Starlin Castro to the Yankees for RHP Adam Warren; re-signed RHP Trevor Cahill; lost RHPs Jason Motte, Fernando Rodney and Tommy Hunter in free agency; OFs Dexter Fowler and Austin Jackson remain free agents; RHP Dan Haren retired.

 

Most intriguing player: Heyward’s big contract and move to center field puts him in the spotlight. Heyward seems to have grown comfortable with the kind of player he is, so the fear that he may try to do much and struggle is probably overblown. In fact, I wonder if Joe Maddon puts him in the leadoff spot since there isn’t another obvious candidate. Maddon could run out a lineup of Heyward, Zobrist, Anthony Rizzo, Kris Bryant, Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler, Miguel Montero and Addison Russell. There’s power, there’s OBP, there’s left-right balance, there’s youth, there are MVP candidates, there are no easy at-bats for opposing pitchers. Good luck, National League.

 

I'm just the messenger: The Cubs are the heavy favorites as the best team in baseball. But how often does the preseason favorite actually live up to those odds? Let’s go back to 2010 ...

 

2015: Nationals (over/under 93.5 wins) -- won 83, missed playoffs

 

2014: Dodgers (92.5) -- won 94, lost in NLDS

 

2013: Tigers (90) -- won 93, lost in ALCS

 

2012: Phillies (95.5) -- won 81, missed playoffs

 

2011: Phillies (96) -- won 102, lost in NLDS

 

2010: Yankees (95) -- won 95, lost in ALCS

 

Two big flops and four teams matched or exceeded expectations, although all failed to reach the World Series.

 

Where I could be wrong: Is there any way the Cubs don’t win 90-plus games? Sure, the 2015 Nationals and 2012 Phillies are instructive examples. In the Nationals’ case, they were devastated by injuries on the offensive side, but here’s the odd thing: They actually scored more runs than the year before. Their collapse was a result of the pitching, which allowed 80 more runs. That’s probably the most likely scenario for a disappointing Cubs season: Jake Arrieta is human, Jon Lester isn’t quite as good, maybe Lackey gets old overnight. The 2011 Phillies had one of the great rotations in history, but Roy Halladay got hurt in 2012 (4.49 ERA), Cliff Lee went 6-9 despite a 3.16 ERA and the back of the rotation wasn’t good. The lineup was old as well -- less of an issue for the Cubs -- but the Phillies allowed a staggering 151 more runs.

 

The final word: Barring a long list of injuries, the Cubs look like a powerhouse. They’re loaded with depth and versatility in both position players and starting pitching. Unlike the 2015 Nationals, they also have the right manager to make sure there’s no coasting on hype or clubhouse issues that incinerate the team. Considering I think the Pirates and Cardinals fall back a bit this year, the Cubs win the tough NL Central pretty easily. Then comes the postseason ...

 

Prediction: 100-62

[Banedon]

Is PECOTA still broken?

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

 

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Banedon]

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-power-rankings--hope-springs-eternal-as-camps-open-034229342-mlb.html

 

Yahoo giving "reasons for optimism" in the power rankings...

 

1. Chicago Cubs (97-65; Previous: 4) – It’s an odd century.

 

2. St. Louis Cardinals (100-62; Previous: 1) – C’mon, man, it’s the Cubs.

[David]

Cubs over/under at Golden Nugget is set at 94.

 

The 87 number was apparently from the Atlantis in Reno.

[David]

this thread probably works for pre-season bouquets too

 

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2016/2/17/11034524/mlb-preseason-predictions-cubs-phillies-mariners

 

Cubs

 

The Cubs will be good. I suppose there is a permutation, one simulated season out of 10,000, where the Cubs are genuinely awful, where everyone gets hurt, except for Kris Bryant, who hits five home runs and inspires scores of "What's Wrong With Kris Bryant" article every month. If the Cubs suffer, say, five or six absolutely catastrophic events or disappointments, they certainly could finish under .500. And we've all seen teams that have suffered five or six absolutely catastrophic events or disappointments. One minute you're enjoying the deepest lineup in baseball, and the next minute you're looking at a rotation with Dallas Beeler and Jonathan Pettibone, wondering what happened.

 

You can say this about every team.

 

The difference with the Cubs, though, is that they're so very young. Other than Ben Zobrist and Miguel Montero, everyone in the lineup is under 30, and there are younger players behind those two who can help out. The rotation is a bit on the older side -- and they don't have the 38 different starting pitchers in reserve that the Dodgers have -- but they still look like they have a fine chance to get four different 200-inning seasons, which hasn't been done since the 2012 Reds.

 

What I like about the Cubs' roster is that you don't need anything but reasonable expectations to make them a great team. Kris Bryant doesn't need to improve on his rookie season and become an MVP candidate. Ben Zobrist doesn't need to repeat his best seasons. Jason Heyward doesn't have to break out offensively like we've been expecting for five years. Addison Russell doesn't have to improve a lick. Jake Arrieta doesn't have to have an ERA under 2.00 again for the Cubs to be excellent.

 

But you know what? All of those things certainly could happen. If Kyle Schwarber hits 40 home runs, there won't be a lot of postseason retrospectives wondering how in the heck he did it. Bryant could evolve into Super Bryant and take Russell with him. There are permutations in which everything goes wrong for the Cubs. There are a lot more where everything goes right.

 

I'm sure that makes Cubs fans feel totally at ease, and they're not freaking out about whatever's hiding under their bed. Not at all.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Grant Brisbee is just the best. Be sure to read that whole article for the part on the Mariners.

[Banedon]

Grant Brisbee is just the best. Be sure to read that whole article for the part on the Mariners.

 

Thanks for mentioning that. I'd have only read the Cubs part and missed out.

[bukie]

I feel like a lot of people aren't really understanding the statistic projections clearly. Statistical projections nearly always predict slight regression in every player. Meaning, if every player on the Cubs regressed slightly towards replacement level, the Cubs would project to WIN 100 GAMES. Now imagine if some of the young players improve...

 

I mean, predicting the Cubs to win 101 games isn't some pie-in-the-sky optimistic dream, it's a fairly conservative prediction. Optimism would be predicting 125 wins to set the winning percentage record.

[David]

I feel like a lot of people aren't really understanding the statistic projections clearly. Statistical projections nearly always predict slight regression in every player. Meaning, if every player on the Cubs regressed slightly towards replacement level, the Cubs would project to WIN 100 GAMES. Now imagine if some of the young players improve...

 

I mean, predicting the Cubs to win 101 games isn't some pie-in-the-sky optimistic dream, it's a fairly conservative prediction. Optimism would be predicting 125 wins to set the winning percentage record.

Well, yeah, except most of the projections have them in the low to mid 90s, not 100. So they would need some positive variance overall to get to 100.

[bukie]

I feel like a lot of people aren't really understanding the statistic projections clearly. Statistical projections nearly always predict slight regression in every player. Meaning, if every player on the Cubs regressed slightly towards replacement level, the Cubs would project to WIN 100 GAMES. Now imagine if some of the young players improve...

 

I mean, predicting the Cubs to win 101 games isn't some pie-in-the-sky optimistic dream, it's a fairly conservative prediction. Optimism would be predicting 125 wins to set the winning percentage record.

Well, yeah, except most of the projections have them in the low to mid 90s, not 100. So they would need some positive variance overall to get to 100.

None of the statistical projections have them in the low to mid 90s except PECOTA. Vegas is not a stat projection. Steamer has them at 99, ZiPs has them at even more WAR so pending the baseline it could be even higher.

[David]

I feel like a lot of people aren't really understanding the statistic projections clearly. Statistical projections nearly always predict slight regression in every player. Meaning, if every player on the Cubs regressed slightly towards replacement level, the Cubs would project to WIN 100 GAMES. Now imagine if some of the young players improve...

 

I mean, predicting the Cubs to win 101 games isn't some pie-in-the-sky optimistic dream, it's a fairly conservative prediction. Optimism would be predicting 125 wins to set the winning percentage record.

Well, yeah, except most of the projections have them in the low to mid 90s, not 100. So they would need some positive variance overall to get to 100.

None of the statistical projections have them in the low to mid 90s except PECOTA. Vegas is not a stat projection. Steamer has them at 99, ZiPs has them at even more WAR so pending the baseline it could be even higher.

 

Oh, thanks for letting me know Vegas isn't a stat projection.

 

I believe these are Steamer based http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings

 

http://claydavenport.com/projections/PROJHOME.shtml

 

And be careful taking individual player WAR projections and adding them to a replacement level value to come up with a win total. It gets you close, but it's not perfect.

[bukie]

Well, yeah, except most of the projections have them in the low to mid 90s, not 100. So they would need some positive variance overall to get to 100.

None of the statistical projections have them in the low to mid 90s except PECOTA. Vegas is not a stat projection. Steamer has them at 99, ZiPs has them at even more WAR so pending the baseline it could be even higher.

 

Oh, thanks for letting me know Vegas isn't a stat projection.

 

I believe these are Steamer based http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings

 

http://claydavenport.com/projections/PROJHOME.shtml

 

And be careful taking individual player WAR projections and adding them to a replacement level value to come up with a win total. It gets you close, but it's not perfect.

Fair enough, was simply stressing predictions vs projections. As for WAR projections, accounting for playing time and optimizing for correct usage still gets you some ridiculous aggregates.

 

121-41 for reals.