General Cubs Chit-Chat

[Sammy Sofa]

Gimme that sweet, sweet under.

[imb]

 

Remember when projections (not necessarily PECOTA but others) had the Cubs winning like 105 games a couple of years ago?

 

pecota is big on framing right? i bet if we swapped out contreras for grandal we'd just to first

[CyHawk_Cub]

If you had a button you could push right now that would guarantee the Cubs sweep their way to winning the WS this year, but it would also ensure that we must endure President Trump for at least 4 years, WOULD YOU PUSH IT?

 

 

[Cubswin11]

 

Remember when projections (not necessarily PECOTA but others) had the Cubs winning like 105 games a couple of years ago?

 

pecota is big on framing right? i bet if we swapped out contreras for grandal we'd just to first

It has a ridiculous blind spot for framing. Tyler Flowers and some other obscure catcher project to be inside the top ~5 in all of baseball for WAR off their metrics. Miguel Montero projects to be like the 20th best player by WAR this year and a few other random catchers in the top ~50.

 

If framing really is this valuable we probably should go to the automated zone sooner than later if HP umps can essentially be tricked in to calling or not calling strikes and that outcome affects win totals this much.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Cubswin11

[cl smooth]

If you had a button you could push right now that would guarantee the Cubs sweep their way to winning the WS this year, but it would also ensure that we must endure President Trump for at least 4 years, WOULD YOU PUSH IT?

 

 

do-over?

 

[Bertz]

 

Remember when projections (not necessarily PECOTA but others) had the Cubs winning like 105 games a couple of years ago?

 

pecota is big on framing right? i bet if we swapped out contreras for grandal we'd just to first

 

Sort of. Their framing boner says the Brewers are ~two wins above average and the Cubs are ~two wins below. That still leaves a five game gap between the Cubs and Brewers. The two bigger factors are that BP thinks the Cubs' defense is pretty much exactly average outside of Framing, and that it hates the rotation (projecting our 5 guys for 8 total WAR). The latter IMO is harsh but reasonable, while I can't even really devil's advocate my way to the former.

 

I think generally and more simply the system does not like the Cubs' core players. It projected the team at 89 wins last year going into the year. And while the team underachieved it a) still cleared that bar by six games and b) that modest projection wasn't worried about KB, Darvish, or Quintana, who are the guys who drove the team to underachieve.

[Regular Show]

 

Remember when projections (not necessarily PECOTA but others) had the Cubs winning like 105 games a couple of years ago?

 

pecota is big on framing right? i bet if we swapped out contreras for grandal we'd just to first

 

If framing really is this valuable we probably should go to the automated zone sooner than later if HP umps can essentially be tricked in to calling or not calling strikes and that outcome affects win totals this much.

 

I don't think framing really affects win totals that much and that people overstate how good/bad any catcher is at this "skill".

 

Now, are HP umps tricked into calling balls as strikes? Do they mess up on pitches low and/or beneath the strike zone? Do they let the count affect whether to call the next pitch a ball/strike?

 

Obviously, the answer is yes and everyone horsefeathering knows this. I'm really pissed that of all the changes they're thinking of making (universal DH, lowering/pushing back the mound, expanded rosters, etc.) no one wants to even bring up an exploratory study on implementing an automated strike zone.

 

horsefeathers you Rob Manfred and not wanting to get rid of the "human element". Don't give me that BS about the technology not being good enough.

[Bertz]

 

Did we know that Edward's had the best fastball spin rate in baseball? Also, does Carl not have a dedicated thread?

[Cubswin11]

 

Did we know that Edward's had the best fastball spin rate in baseball? Also, does Carl not have a dedicated thread?

I didn’t know about his spin rates, but I guess it makes sense since his numbers/effectiveness of his FB in the zone always rates as one of the best.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I didn’t know the specifics but “knew” Edwards’ fastball was a badass pitch. I consider him a breakout candidate

Is a guy with a career 3.12 FIP and back to back 1 WAR seasons out of the pen allowed to "breakout?"

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I didn’t know the specifics but “knew” Edwards’ fastball was a badass pitch. I consider him a breakout candidate

Is a guy with a career 3.12 FIP and back to back 1 WAR seasons out of the pen allowed to "breakout?"

 

As a general template I’m looking at David Robertson’s 2011

Oddly specific, but sign me up.

[CyHawk_Cub]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Probably

[Cubswin11]

What’s the definition/benchmarks of a dynasty in MLB?

 

WS win, averaging mid 90s wins and leading mlb in total wins over a 4 year span (with a decent chance it’s a 5-6+ year span), 3 NLCS appearances, and guys winning MVP and CY Young on the team during the run seems pretty close to a dynasty in MLB to me. Especially since we are still plenty good for the next few years.

[David]

championships

 

it's all luck but it still comes down to championships for that word to be invoked. more than one. probably more than 2. the 90s yankees and the 2010s giants.

[Cubswin11]

championships

 

it's all luck but it still comes down to championships for that word to be invoked. more than one. probably more than 2. the 90s yankees and the 2010s giants.

That’s fair, to me I think that’s a little rigid given the nature of baseball. But certainly get it. 1 WS win and 5+ years of 90+ wins and playoff appearances is pretty close to being one in MLB for me.

[Brian]

The one MLB dynasty of the last 20 years, is pretty much the least impressive you can be and still be called a dynasty

 

didn't make the playoffs

WS

didn't make the playoffs

WS

didn't make the playoffs

WS

didn't make the playoffs

2nd wild card, out in the divisional round

didn't make the playoffs

didn't make the playoffs

 

I'd of course take the 2 more trophies, but the Cubs aren't all that far off and they still can add to it (put away your doom boners)

[WrigleyField 22]

championships

 

it's all luck but it still comes down to championships for that word to be invoked. more than one. probably more than 2. the 90s yankees and the 2010s giants.

Its not a bad general rule, but I'd call the 1 championship 90s Braves a dynasty.

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Not technically...if they decided to suddenly stomp on the gas pedal, there are still more than enough pieces there...but that doesn't seem to be the attitude, at least not by ownership.

[David]

championships

 

it's all luck but it still comes down to championships for that word to be invoked. more than one. probably more than 2. the 90s yankees and the 2010s giants.

Its not a bad general rule, but I'd call the 1 championship 90s Braves a dynasty.

i'll allow it with all those division titles, but i'd prefer to go with "run" to describe that one

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What’s the definition/benchmarks of a dynasty in MLB?

 

WS win, averaging mid 90s wins and leading mlb in total wins over a 4 year span (with a decent chance it’s a 5-6+ year span), 3 NLCS appearances, and guys winning MVP and CY Young on the team during the run seems pretty close to a dynasty in MLB to me. Especially since we are still plenty good for the next few years.

 

I know that accolade creep is inevitable in sports (how many generational talents can one sport have simultaneously?!), but I'm gonna draw the line here. You do have to win multiple championships to be called a dynasty.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

championships

 

it's all luck but it still comes down to championships for that word to be invoked. more than one. probably more than 2. the 90s yankees and the 2010s giants.

Its not a bad general rule, but I'd call the 1 championship 90s Braves a dynasty.

 

Denied.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I won't call the Giants a dynasty either. They were a lucky-hot second-tier team most of those, and they didn't win any of them consecutively.

 

The last MLB dynasty was the Yankees.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Kyle getting this excited to call things not a dynasty is so on brand I'm almost suspicious it's actually him.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Were the 1998-2004 Cubs a dynasty?

 

Resume:

Winning season more often than not

Won a play-in game before it was even in the rules

Iconic 1998 Home Run Chase

Murderers' Throw

2001 team super underrated, would have been replacement for Giants in the WC game if their plane had crashed and the WC game had existed back then