Projecting the 2016 Cubs

[minnesotacubsfan]

Is the improvement for OFers have anything to do with the ball flying better in warmer humid weather, i.e. More chances?

[Bull]

7 of 45 at under 50 degrees over 12 games.

well, that settles it, then.

 

He wears a freaking ski mask.

goofy as hell as it looks, there are several guys who wear those

You conveniently left out the part where I suggested that he's going to be sitting more than 12 games. Why not 12 where there's a chance he's worse? I recognize the small sample size. Small sample size doesn't mean the opposite of what the sample suggests is true, it just means that the suggestion is not NECESSARILY true. So even if the sample is wrong, he's going to be sitting more than 12 games, so I'll ask it again,

 

Why not those games?

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

MURTON! Or Neil Rameriez, or Rex Brothers, or Alcantara...or maybe even Szczer.

Szczur and Alcantara at their best have been less than Victorino at his worst; this is a strange hot take

 

Yeah, Victorino makes sense as the 5th OF. No idea why some people are supposed to that. Why the hell do people want fat-legged Murton in a role mostly used for defense anyway?

Because I'd rather have someone that can hit on the bench and let Baez do the late inning LF defense thing (assuming he can). Now...can Murton actually still hit? Well, I would assume if he makes the team, he can. If Victorino makes the team, I'm still going to be fairly curtain he can't. (Murton has a pretty severe .SLG split and reverse .OBP split in his MLB ABs...no idea how to use that info, but I'm sure that Maddon will turn that into wins because I'm racist.)

 

As for preferring Alcantara or Szczer to Victorino, Victorino is 35 years old and those other two might magically blossom into usable pieces in the future...Alcantara more than Szczer.

[Sammy Sofa]

The only thing Murton is going to hit is the can. It's a puff piece signing.

 

I mean, if you want a bat off the bench then save Baez instead of putting him in as a defensive replacement in the OF when Victorino can do that.

 

Let us never speak of Al Contra ever again.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

7 of 45 at under 50 degrees over 12 games.

well, that settles it, then.

 

He wears a freaking ski mask.

goofy as hell as it looks, there are several guys who wear those

You conveniently left out the part where I suggested that he's going to be sitting more than 12 games. Why not 12 where there's a chance he's worse? I recognize the small sample size. Small sample size doesn't mean the opposite of what the sample suggests is true, it just means that the suggestion is not NECESSARILY true. So even if the sample is wrong, he's going to be sitting more than 12 games, so I'll ask it again,

 

Why not those games?

 

 

Soler was 8 for 34 with a .551 OPS during Ramadan last year. He was 6 for 34 on dates that end in the number 9.

 

Those examples are intentionally ridiculous, not because the idea of Soler being bad in the cold is ridiculous(I can definitely see him being below the already low average there), but to point out that 12 games worth of PA is literally nothing, and also that when you start looking for indicators in samples that small, you have to weigh a lot of indicators. If the Cubs face Kershaw or Bumgarner on a 45 degree night, does it make sense to steer clear of Soler and set up Schwarber(or Heyward or Montero) to fail against an elite LHP? If Fowler has a gimpy ankle do we send him out there on a cold night just to shield Soler from a situation where expectations clearly shouldn't be all that high of any outfielder? Soler also didn't have a terrific season regardless of weather either, he had a .638 OPS in 92 PA in July. The team has higher expectations than his 2015 line(otherwise he won't play much at all), and expecting that improvement to only come in certain temperatures doesn't strike me as super logical.

 

So yes, all things equal, I can entertain the idea that Soler should not play in cold weather if we can help it. The takeaway is that all things are never equal, and given the reallllly limited sample of Soler's cold weather play, it's a really small factor that has to be weighed with dozens of really small factors, like how many days in a row has Schwarber played, or what is Fowler's career line against the starting pitcher.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

The only thing Murton is going to hit is the can. It's a puff piece signing.

 

Oh come on. We had a lovable mascot on the team last year. Why can't we have a red headed one this year?! It was his appendix holding him back!

[Banedon]

I'LL TELL YOU WHY:

 

http://33.media.tumblr.com/d427704e96e05c0fcbc6119c579ed77a/tumblr_n9vj3b4RbO1smcbm7o1_400.gif

 

http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/134/02c40c40-aa60-0131-7219-1a6e19b414f6.gif?

[Bull]

 

So yes, all things equal, I can entertain the idea that Soler should not play in cold weather if we can help it. The takeaway is that all things are never equal, and given the reallllly limited sample of Soler's cold weather play, it's a really small factor that has to be weighed with dozens of really small factors, like how many days in a row has Schwarber played, or what is Fowler's career line against the starting pitcher.

 

This is what I'm getting at. With four starter-quality outfielders, Soler will be sitting a lot. On days he comes to the park in a ski mask, send him to the old clubhouse and let him start a fire in the corner. Its less about the numbers in that admittedly small sample, but more about what is painfully obvious as he shivers at the plate.

 

i don't buy that all things are never equal. I hope that Schwarbs and Soler won't be in a straight platoon, but that Soler will be getting the bulk of PT against lefties. But with the majority of pitchers being right handed, he will be sitting some. Enough to let him sit in frigid weather.

 

Obviously if its a tough lefty and cold out, you play a righty over Schwarber (though Baez and a likely right-handed 5th of are looking for plate appearances too, right?

Additionally, if ALL outfielders struggle in cold weather, and you want Soler gaining confidence, why set him up for failure? Note: this is apart from any dependence on Solers SSS in cold weather.)

 

it is one of a myriad factors, but it is a factor.

[Banedon]

Phil Rogers picks Heyward to win the NL MVP, the Cubs to win 100 games, but lose to the Royals in the WS.

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/160855212/10-bold-predictions-for-2016-baseball-season

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Phil Rogers picks Heyward to win the NL MVP, the Cubs to win 100 games, but lose to the Royals in the WS.

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/160855212/10-bold-predictions-for-2016-baseball-season

I want to revisit this when the Royals win 74 games

[Banedon]

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb-news/4697622-cubs-2016-season-preview-world-series-jake-arrieta-joe-maddon-predictions-picks

[profisme]

I'LL TELL YOU WHY:

 

http://33.media.tumblr.com/d427704e96e05c0fcbc6119c579ed77a/tumblr_n9vj3b4RbO1smcbm7o1_400.gif

 

http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/134/02c40c40-aa60-0131-7219-1a6e19b414f6.gif?

 

"Ron Howard"

[David]

I'm loving that the "I'm gonna be the contrarian down on the Cubs guy" article is coming from a guy who is still picking them to win the division and win 89-92 games...especially, when it's based on this terrible plexiglas principle argument about teams that improve greatly from year to year taking a step back, ignoring the vast differences between the 2014 and 2015 rosters.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[David]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jonahkeri/status/709774960969932800[/tweet]

[UMFan83]

I'm loving that the "I'm gonna be the contrarian down on the Cubs guy" article is coming from a guy who is still picking them to win the division and win 89-92 games...especially, when it's based on this terrible plexiglas principle argument about teams that improve greatly from year to year taking a step back, ignoring the vast differences between the 2014 and 2015 rosters.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Meh, Bernstein basically read the entire article on the Score yesterday. I don't think the plexiglas principle is a terrible argument, when you look at it historically its been very accurate. It doesn't mean the Cubs are guaranteed to take a step back just that we can't necessarily count on being as healthy as we were last year (particularly with our starters), can't count on leading baseball in walk off wins, can't count on our young players not having sophomore slumps (which tbh is a dumber principle than plexiglas), can't count on the back end of the bullpen being as good and (relatively) consistent, etc. A lot can go wrong in a season, and the fact that Sheehan, who is a strong believer of the plexiglass principle, is still picking the Cubs to win the division and 90 games tells you a lot about how good and deep the Cubs are.

[David]

I'm loving that the "I'm gonna be the contrarian down on the Cubs guy" article is coming from a guy who is still picking them to win the division and win 89-92 games...especially, when it's based on this terrible plexiglas principle argument about teams that improve greatly from year to year taking a step back, ignoring the vast differences between the 2014 and 2015 rosters.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Meh, Bernstein basically read the entire article on the Score yesterday. I don't think the plexiglas principle is a terrible argument, when you look at it historically its been very accurate. It doesn't mean the Cubs are guaranteed to take a step back just that we can't necessarily count on being as healthy as we were last year (particularly with our starters), can't count on leading baseball in walk off wins, can't count on our young players not having sophomore slumps (which tbh is a dumber principle than plexiglas), can't count on the back end of the bullpen being as good and (relatively) consistent, etc. A lot can go wrong in a season, and the fact that Sheehan, who is a strong believer of the plexiglass principle, is still picking the Cubs to win the division and 90 games tells you a lot about how good and deep the Cubs are.

 

That's basically what I said.

 

Except applying the plexiglas principle is dumb. This isn't a team that had a few guys overperform and suddenly have a good year. This is a team that drastically overhauled its roster, with only a handful of (the good ones) players from the 2014 opening day roster being part of the team that ran roughshod on the NL in the second half last year.

 

The 2014 team is as close to irrelevant re: the 2016 (or 2015, for that matter) team as can be. That roster has no bearing whatsoever on what the 2016 team will do. Of course teams that have huge jumps in win totals often don't repeat it (even though the sample size doesn't really prove anything about anythign)...teams that have huge jumps in win totals have huge win totals typically. And having huge win totals is hard. Repeating them is hard. Neither of those things have anything to do with the 2014 team.

 

Projection models are much more reliable than this questionable "principle," especially in this application. If a team has a reason it's success in a given year is unsustainable or not repeatable, it will be reflected in the projections. He then said something along the lines of, "so don't believe the hype, the Cubs aren't that much better than the Cardinals and Pirates." Except it's not hype. Statistically based projections have the Cubs at a pretty crazily high totals in the mid 90s, and the Pirates and Cardinals somewhere in the mid 80s. Where is the hype biasing these? And why aren't the projections reflecting the plexiglas principle?

 

If it's not obvious, I'm not saying there aren't scenarios where the Cubs take steps back (or win the amount of games he says they will - which is pretty likely). I'm saying it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2014 team that gave 350 PA to Nate Schierholtz, or 300+ PA to Alcantara, or 200+ PA to Darwin Barney, or 300+ PA to Junior Lake, or 300 PA to Emilio Bonifacio, or 250+ PA to Mike Olt, or 31 starts to Travis Wood, 27 to Edwin Jackson, etc.

Edited March 15, 2016 by David

[RammyFanny]

I'm loving that the "I'm gonna be the contrarian down on the Cubs guy" article is coming from a guy who is still picking them to win the division and win 89-92 games...especially, when it's based on this terrible plexiglas principle argument about teams that improve greatly from year to year taking a step back, ignoring the vast differences between the 2014 and 2015 rosters.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Meh, Bernstein basically read the entire article on the Score yesterday. I don't think the plexiglas principle is a terrible argument, when you look at it historically its been very accurate. It doesn't mean the Cubs are guaranteed to take a step back just that we can't necessarily count on being as healthy as we were last year (particularly with our starters), can't count on leading baseball in walk off wins, can't count on our young players not having sophomore slumps (which tbh is a dumber principle than plexiglas), can't count on the back end of the bullpen being as good and (relatively) consistent, etc. A lot can go wrong in a season, and the fact that Sheehan, who is a strong believer of the plexiglass principle, is still picking the Cubs to win the division and 90 games tells you a lot about how good and deep the Cubs are.

 

It's a terrible argument. Anthony Rizzo is the only position player from the entirety of 2014 still on the team (sans late season callups for Baez and Soler). Our lineup we trotted out most days was Bonifacio/Lake/Rizzo/Castro/Olt/Schierholtz Castillo/Barney. With deadline fire sales.

 

If you can convince me why that team should have any bearing on projecting the 2016 Cubs, then I salute you.

 

Edit: David beat me.

[RammyFanny]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-and-the-best-start-ever/

 

I think this may be the most pointless article I've ever read.

The question I’m curious about is are the Cubs as good as the Tigers? More specifically, can the Cubs equal or even beat Detroit’s three-decades-plus old record?

The answer is of course, yes, sure they can. Any team could win 35 of their first 40 games. The Cubs are a team and the Cubs play baseball so the Cubs could do it. We don’t need to run any numbers to know it’s not very likely though.

[UMFan83]

I'm loving that the "I'm gonna be the contrarian down on the Cubs guy" article is coming from a guy who is still picking them to win the division and win 89-92 games...especially, when it's based on this terrible plexiglas principle argument about teams that improve greatly from year to year taking a step back, ignoring the vast differences between the 2014 and 2015 rosters.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Meh, Bernstein basically read the entire article on the Score yesterday. I don't think the plexiglas principle is a terrible argument, when you look at it historically its been very accurate. It doesn't mean the Cubs are guaranteed to take a step back just that we can't necessarily count on being as healthy as we were last year (particularly with our starters), can't count on leading baseball in walk off wins, can't count on our young players not having sophomore slumps (which tbh is a dumber principle than plexiglas), can't count on the back end of the bullpen being as good and (relatively) consistent, etc. A lot can go wrong in a season, and the fact that Sheehan, who is a strong believer of the plexiglass principle, is still picking the Cubs to win the division and 90 games tells you a lot about how good and deep the Cubs are.

 

It's a terrible argument. Anthony Rizzo is the only position player from the entirety of 2014 still on the team (sans late season callups for Baez and Soler). Our lineup we trotted out most days was Bonifacio/Lake/Rizzo/Castro/Olt/Schierholtz Castillo/Barney. With deadline fire sales.

 

If you can convince me why that team should have any bearing on projecting the 2016 Cubs, then I salute you.

 

Edit: David beat me.

 

Yes, but the principle is not just players overperforming, it has a lot to do with luck evening out. The cubs played the 3rd most 1 run games last year and won 62% of them, they led the MLB in walk off wins, they went 13-5 in extra innings, their pythag was 90-72, their ace went 3.5 months giving up 4 ER total, they were slightly luckier than the average MLB team with regards to injuries, above average with regards to 'cluster luck'

 

I don't claim to be a baseball savant at all and im sure my devil's advocate argument (yeah I actually don't believe the Cubs will suffer from much of a 'plexiglass principle') will be torn apart, but the argument (which is essentially 'i dont think the plexiglass principle is terrible) makes sense to me.

[David]

Yes, but the principle is not just players overperforming, it has a lot to do with luck evening out. The cubs played the 3rd most 1 run games last year and won 62% of them, they led the MLB in walk off wins, they went 13-5 in extra innings, their pythag was 90-72, their ace went 3.5 months giving up 4 ER total, they were slightly luckier than the average MLB team with regards to injuries, above average with regards to 'cluster luck'

 

I don't claim to be a baseball savant at all and im sure my devil's advocate argument (yeah I actually don't believe the Cubs will suffer from much of a 'plexiglass principle') will be torn apart, but the argument (which is essentially 'i dont think the plexiglass principle is terrible) makes sense to me.

 

 

The part where the entire argument falls flat is where it's being based on the improvement from 2014-2015. The 2014 team couldn't be more vastly differently constructed than this one. The 2016 team basically has the handful of good players (sans Samardzija & 2014 Castro) from 2014, and then instead of a bunch of horrific players making up the rest of the roster, it has a bunch of really good ones.

 

You almost can't pick two more different teams on purpose.

 

Yes, teams that win 97 games will have a hard time repeating that. It almost always takes positive variance in many ways to win 97 games in baseball. That's not the plexiglas principle. That's the case for any team that wins a ton of games.

[UMFan83]

A big part of the plexiglass principle absolutely is variance due to luck. I get your argument that the 2014-2015 teams are vastly different. but my sleep deprived brain reminds me that he is talking about teams winning 20+ games over the previous year losing 5+ more games the next year. I think luck could easily account for all of that.

[Tim]

A big part of the plexiglass principle absolutely is variance due to luck. I get your argument that the 2014-2015 teams are vastly different. but my sleep deprived brain reminds me that he is talking about teams winning 20+ games over the previous year losing 5+ more games the next year. I think luck could easily account for all of that.

They are independent events. Luck doesn't really "even out". Whether we were lucky last season or not, we are equally likely to have good and bad luck in 2016.

[David]

It's basically stupid for the same reason the oft-seen arguments that teams that are bad one year somehow have to add to that year's win total in order to be good, regardless of what moves are made and how different the actual team is. It was a commonly cited argument for why 2015 was a "bridge year" or whatever because the team in 2014 lost 90 games. "Really? They're going to make a 20 win jump?" Most people weren't willing to go past .500 in predicting last year's team, and they considered that an optimistic view. Now, there were good reasons to project it as a .500 team (not the least of which was not expecting the rookies to be that impactful and that good right away), but the 2014 record wasn't really one of them. Not when they made the offseason changes they made and had the promotions coming that they had.

 

When you project a given season, everyone starts 0-0 and what matters is the roster at that time. You don't have to dig uphill. Maybe it's better illustrated in reverse...in a different sport but a point in time that most of us are familiar with...nobody was gonna give the 1999 Bulls any boost in expectations based on the dynasty that preceded it.

 

IIRC, I think this is one of TT's pet peeve topics.

[David]

A big part of the plexiglass principle absolutely is variance due to luck. I get your argument that the 2014-2015 teams are vastly different. but my sleep deprived brain reminds me that he is talking about teams winning 20+ games over the previous year losing 5+ more games the next year. I think luck could easily account for all of that.

 

I honestly can't even wrap my head around whatever it is you're trying to say here.

 

If the foundation of the argument rests on the win gap between 2015 and 2014, it is already extremely specious. That is literally the foundation of Sheehan citing the plexiglas principle.

[UMFan83]

A big part of the plexiglass principle absolutely is variance due to luck. I get your argument that the 2014-2015 teams are vastly different. but my sleep deprived brain reminds me that he is talking about teams winning 20+ games over the previous year losing 5+ more games the next year. I think luck could easily account for all of that.

They are independent events. Luck doesn't really "even out". Whether we were lucky last season or not, we are equally likely to have good and bad luck in 2016.

 

Correct. But many if not most of the teams that improve by 20 games get a boost from luck. And they could get the same or even better luck the next year maybe they will not follow the principle (1 of the 18 teams they looked at from recent years didn't follow this principle).