Jump to content
North Side Baseball

General Cubs Chit-Chat

Sammy Sofa

By Sammy Sofa,
in Chicago Cubs Talk

 Share
Aaron_Kennelly South Bend Cubs

Aaron_Kennelly

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

Also, there was a Fangraphs article about the Rangers I was reading yesterday. It was, essentially, about how the Rangers have been lucky and have a rather pedestrian wOBA difference between their pitching and hitting. Then, I saw this chart and had a laugh...

 

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/run-differential-vs-woba-differential.png

 

It's just hilarious. It doesn't matter what measure you are looking at, we are on another planet than every other team in baseball.

  • Replies 8.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

imb MVP

imb

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

 

My favorite part is how we are 40-16 and underachieving. Yep, on pace to win 115 games and we are lower than where our Pythag and BaseRuns say we should be.

 

Oh, and if the chatter about MLB shrinking the strike zone (by raising the bottom of the zone from the hollow beneath the kneecap to the top of the knees) is true, that figures to benefit the teams that use the strike zone as a weapon — and none do so more effectively than the Cubs.

 

sexual

David GOAT

David

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
to me it would seem like it might actually hurt us. we're already good at controlling the strike zone. i think other teams might get better at it more than we would from the change. but who knows, maybe we'd offset that with more dongs since we have so many power bats.
Banedon GOAT

Banedon

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted
to me it would seem like it might actually hurt us. we're already good at controlling the strike zone. i think other teams might get better at it more than we would from the change. but who knows, maybe we'd offset that with more dongs since we have so many power bats.

 

There'd be an adjustment period, but free swingers are gonna be free swingers no matter the zone. Teams that have guys that take a lot of pitches and work walks will benefit from this.

jersey cubs fan GOAT

jersey cubs fan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
to me it would seem like it might actually hurt us. we're already good at controlling the strike zone. i think other teams might get better at it more than we would from the change. but who knows, maybe we'd offset that with more dongs since we have so many power bats.

 

There'd be an adjustment period, but free swingers are gonna be free swingers no matter the zone. Teams that have guys that take a lot of pitches and work walks will benefit from this.

And those with dong capabilities should have more dongable pitches

David GOAT

David

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
to me it would seem like it might actually hurt us. we're already good at controlling the strike zone. i think other teams might get better at it more than we would from the change. but who knows, maybe we'd offset that with more dongs since we have so many power bats.

 

There'd be an adjustment period, but free swingers are gonna be free swingers no matter the zone. Teams that have guys that take a lot of pitches and work walks will benefit from this.

 

I don't even begin to see how this is true.

 

Making it easier for everyone to do what we are already probably by far the best at doesn't seem like some automatically beneficial thing at all.

David GOAT

David

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
to me it would seem like it might actually hurt us. we're already good at controlling the strike zone. i think other teams might get better at it more than we would from the change. but who knows, maybe we'd offset that with more dongs since we have so many power bats.

 

There'd be an adjustment period, but free swingers are gonna be free swingers no matter the zone. Teams that have guys that take a lot of pitches and work walks will benefit from this.

And those with dong capabilities should have more dongable pitches

 

Yeah, that's where I'm saying we might offset leveling the walk/patience playing field in that we'd be able to better take advantage of the power we have up and down the lineup.

Banedon GOAT

Banedon

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted
to me it would seem like it might actually hurt us. we're already good at controlling the strike zone. i think other teams might get better at it more than we would from the change. but who knows, maybe we'd offset that with more dongs since we have so many power bats.

 

There'd be an adjustment period, but free swingers are gonna be free swingers no matter the zone. Teams that have guys that take a lot of pitches and work walks will benefit from this.

 

I don't even begin to see how this is true.

 

Making it easier for everyone to do what we are already probably by far the best at doesn't seem like some automatically beneficial thing at all.

 

You don't see how someone that swings at pitches that are out of the zone now won't still do that with a smaller strike zone?

 

ok.

David GOAT

David

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

 

There'd be an adjustment period, but free swingers are gonna be free swingers no matter the zone. Teams that have guys that take a lot of pitches and work walks will benefit from this.

 

I don't even begin to see how this is true.

 

Making it easier for everyone to do what we are already probably by far the best at doesn't seem like some automatically beneficial thing at all.

 

You don't see how someone that swings at pitches that are out of the zone now won't still do that with a smaller strike zone?

 

ok.

 

Unless you think they are just deciding to swing at everything and their strike recognition ability isn't the real reason and isn't impacted by the size of the zone and borders.

 

This isn't complicated...a smaller strike zone will lead to more walks across the board, and a bigger one would lead to more strikeouts across the board. I'm not sure that the gap between us and the rest of the league would be made wider by shrinking the zone. It's already pretty damn wide.

Banedon GOAT

Banedon

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted

 

I don't even begin to see how this is true.

 

Making it easier for everyone to do what we are already probably by far the best at doesn't seem like some automatically beneficial thing at all.

 

You don't see how someone that swings at pitches that are out of the zone now won't still do that with a smaller strike zone?

 

ok.

 

Unless you think they are just deciding to swing at everything and their strike recognition ability isn't the real reason and isn't impacted by the size of the zone and borders.

 

This isn't complicated...a smaller strike zone will lead to more walks across the board, and a bigger one would lead to more strikeouts across the board.

 

But that's not what you were saying a minute ago. You were saying it would somehow negate a Cubs advantage, or that somehow it would help others more than us. But if walks increase across the board...for teams that aren't all that patient AND for ones like the Cubs that are, there's no real loss...and if anything, there's a gain from the Cubs being able to now hit more balls in the zone.

David GOAT

David

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

 

You don't see how someone that swings at pitches that are out of the zone now won't still do that with a smaller strike zone?

 

ok.

 

Unless you think they are just deciding to swing at everything and their strike recognition ability isn't the real reason and isn't impacted by the size of the zone and borders.

 

This isn't complicated...a smaller strike zone will lead to more walks across the board, and a bigger one would lead to more strikeouts across the board.

 

But that's not what you were saying a minute ago. You were saying it would somehow negate a Cubs advantage, or that somehow it would help others more than us. But if walks increase across the board...for teams that aren't all that patient AND for ones like the Cubs that are, there's no real loss...and if anything, there's a gain from the Cubs being able to now hit more balls in the zone.

 

Read the edit. And I acknowledged that the change MIGHT (we have no real way of knowing this) be offset by better utilizing our power. But it could very easily result in a less drastic advantage in terms of walk rate and OBP.

David GOAT

David

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
One of the reasons we are great is that we have a much easier time scoring runs than almost everyone else in the league. If we make it easier for everyone to score runs, we may (or may not - but I think probably will) at the same time reduce our advantage in said run scoring ability. Diminishing returns...everyone isn't going to benefit to the same degree.
Sammy Sofa GOAT

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think I just completely missed that the Cubs actually traded Beef to the Mariners; I always just thought they dumped him on the Diamondbacks for basically nothing.
David GOAT

David

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I think I just completely missed that the Cubs actually traded Beef to the Mariners; I always just thought they dumped him on the Diamondbacks for basically nothing.

 

i think the diamondbacks actually WERE terrified of dealing with the cubs (unlike billy beane) because after weeks of denying interest in him while he was with us, they traded for him like 2 hours after he got to the mariners.

Cubswin11 All-Star

Cubswin11

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Now that Almora is up, I want to see at least one day when Kris Bryant has a day off where we go:

 

Fowler/Almora/Heyward

Baez/Russell/Zobrist/Rizzo

 

and basically run the best defense ever.

Wouldn't you want Zobrist out to accomplish that? Fowler/Almora/Heyward OF and Bryant/Russell/Baez/Rizzo INF?

BigSlick South Bend Cubs

BigSlick

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

Lavish praise on this team, i just want to keep reveling in it all

 

the only shitty thing is i'm already anticipating the "ho ho!! the playoffs are here! can all this regular season success translate into postseason success??? chokers????????"

Tim MVP

Tim

Site Manager
Posted
Posted

There are 11 Cubs players with 70+ PA's. 9 of them have a BB% greater than 10%. Javy is obviously one of the two that does not. Can you name the other one without looking it up?

 

I was surprised.

UMFan83 GOAT

UMFan83

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
There are 11 Cubs players with 70+ PA's. 9 of them have a BB% greater than 10%. Javy is obviously one of the two that does not. Can you name the other one without looking it up?

 

I was surprised.

 

I guessed it right

 

 

noticed the other day that his OBP was not as high as it was last year despite a higher BA, so threw that guess out there although it still surprised me that it was right

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    6,793
    Total Members
    13,056
    Most Online
    Kevin OBrien
    Newest Member
    Kevin OBrien
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...