General Cubs Chit-Chat

[sneakypower]

i don't see too much fault with that; he's been basically Nick Ahmed plus some walks, which is fine but still disappointing...that higher offensive upside we hoped for is tougher to imagine if his strikeout problems persist

[Sammy Sofa]

Damn, I almost forgot that I should only farm Cubs Reddit for content, not actually to engage in any discussions with the posters. Someone today commenting me saying that nothing I've seen from Russell this season has changed my expectations for his ceiling.

 

I'm not sure age is any excuse we should be proud of. We've seen plenty of guys dominate pitching at age 20/21 in their first full seasons. It's at least concerning that he really hasn't shown anything in the way of power/average/OBP/base stealing.

The way he was hyped (Barry Larkin) we expected high average, decent power, and maybe like 20 steals. He hasn't shown any ability to hit for a decent average, minimal power, and only 6 steals in 200 games. To not at least be concerned at this point seems silly.

Although I would be more concerned if we didn't have Torres waiting in case he doesn't figure it out. And if he continues tanking this year I'm perfectly ok starting Javy at SS come October.

 

[UMFan83]

i don't see too much fault with that; he's been basically Nick Ahmed plus some walks, which is fine but still disappointing...that higher offensive upside we hoped for is tougher to imagine if his strikeout problems persist

 

Relative to his age I am not disappointed at all, he's the 3rd youngest player in the NL, has less than 800 PA's above AA and has shown the ability to walk, which I think is very important when a player is struggling elsewhere. As for power, the guy has 17 HRs in just over a full season's worth of PAs. I think that is within my realm of expectations.

 

The strikeouts are concerning, but not enough to erase the fact that he's still developing and has looked bad enough to where I am changing my long term projection of him.

 

What I thought was bad about the post was that:

 

1) He immediately dismisses age

2) He apparently expected him to resemble Barry Larkin, who had a worse OPS+ in his first 2 seasons (age 22 and 23) than Russell (age 21 and 22), right off the bat

3) He is already in his head preparing for Torres to replace Addison as his SS of the future

 

Just think its silly and overreacts to his first 750 PA that were taken at an age many players are still in AAA.

 

But I consider you a better baseball mind than I, so if you say we should be concerned, maybe I can start to be.

[sneakypower]

of all the 26 hitters (since 2010) to reach 500 PA by age 22, he's only been better offensively than Jose Ramirez:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=500&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=14,22&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

 

some of the players within proximity are monsters now so sure, he can improve there, and he's a fantastic fielder, but it's hard to say he hasn't disappointed with the bat thus far

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Russell is in a slump, so all the macro comparisons are going to be less friendly. At the start of the month(less than 2 weeks ago) he had the same wOBA he had last year, so I'm hesitant to be too disappointed, especially since he was much better in the 2nd half/warmer weather last year. If that continues then he'll likely end up with a small step forward offensively, not the leap that was hoped but not limiting to his future ceiling either.

[David]

lmao at almora's small sample uzr/150

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=14109&position=OF#fielding

[Derwood]

Is like to see how he compares to the NL average for non-pitcher 8/9 hitters

[sneakypower]

the 3 out-of-zone plays is the real highlight (on Almora's D page)

 

but one more (admittedly dumb) point for Russell, he's still following his ZiPS 5-year forecast pretty faithfully so we should wait until next year to complain in earnest if he stays developmentally stagnant:

 

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015TradeValue.png

 

[sneakypower]

and while looking at that trade value graphic, it's a laugh riot to recall that 4th-ranked Kris Bryant was issued a 4.4 WAR projection for this year, but- he's on a 7.7 pace right now...has actually played at a 7.3 win rate for his career to date

 

so i think we have the #1 overall guy in this year's iteration fwiw

[davell]

In 11 outs, James Shields has given up more runs in Chicago than any Cub starter has for the entire year. Edited June 14, 2016 by davell

[davell]

Also, Shields has allowed as many runs in his last 6 innings as Jake has in his last 155.

[PackLandVA]

Also, Shields has allowed as many runs in his last 6 innings as Jake has in his last 155.

 

But he eats up innings. He's EJax Part Deux!

[Clem Fandango]

Also, Shields has allowed as many runs in his last 6 innings as Jake has in his last 155.

 

That can't be right. Jake has given up 18 ER this year in 87 innings. Shields has given up 13 in 7.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

In his last 8 innings Shields has allowed 6 home runs. That's more than Arrieta's allowed in his last 234 regular season innings.

[Banedon]

But why are we comparing Shields to Arrieta? Just because it's fun to put Arrieta's numbers up against other pitchers? Because I don't think it tells us a ton of info about Shields.

[UMFan83]

Also, Shields has allowed as many runs in his last 6 innings as Jake has in his last 155.

 

That can't be right. Jake has given up 18 ER this year in 87 innings. Shields has given up 13 in 7.

 

I am guessing this was posted during his start, as he gave up 7 runs (6 earned) in the first 3 innings.

 

2.2 IP - 10 ER (last Padres start)

2.0 IP - 7 ER (first Sox start)

1.1 IP - 5 ER (the start of last night's game)

 

That would be 22 ER in 6 IP. He then recovered to allow 2 runs (1 earned) in his final 3.2 IP.

[UMFan83]

In 11 outs, James Shields has given up more runs in Chicago than any Cub starter has for the entire year.

 

http://twitter.com/BBTN/status/742537933807312896/photo/1

[davell]

Yeah, I posted that in the 3rd inning yesterday.

[David]

But why are we comparing Shields to Arrieta? Just because it's fun to put Arrieta's numbers up against other pitchers? Because I don't think it tells us a ton of info about Shields.

 

you're comparing almost half a season of one guy to 2 short starts by another guy

[UMFan83]

Fangraphs post on the Cubs historic BABIP allowed

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/another-thing-at-which-these-cubs-are-best/

 

I know there is not much to be concerned with the Cubs, even so I will say with the cavet that I believe the Cubs are a fantastic team and I have no doubts about their ability to a) make the playoffs by winning the divison with ease or b) be well positioned to compete in the October crapshoot. So really the only discussion is how awesome are the Cubs: best team ever, historically great team or 'run of the mill' 100 win team. So I hope you will allow my 'concerns' to remain in that context and not take it as a sky is falling sort of thing, but it is me so I don't know if I earned the benefit of doubt.

 

My concern is that the pitching staff will regress quite a bit as the season goes on. These numbers are not sustainable are they? The good news is that all this would do is likely take games where we'd win by 5 runs and turn them into games we'd win by 1-2 runs. But my further concern is that I still want to pick up a top-3 type starter at the deadline, and if we are pitching as well as we are now, we might not pull the trigger on an impact guy for the playoffs.

 

So talk me off the 'historically great or only a 100 win team' ledge. Can we sustain this, is this something to keep an eye on?

 

Also one of the commentators in the article posted this:

 

BABIP Z-Score: -4.17 (lowest since 2006)

LOB% Z-Score: 3.21 (highest since 2006)

GB% Z-Score: 2.21 (10th highest since 2006)

HR/FB Z-Score: -0.10 (171st lowest since 2006)

 

ERA-xFIP: -0.96 (widest negative spread since 2006)

ERA-FIP: -0.71 (widest negative spread since 2006)

 

IMO, there’s a lot of luck going on here. They’re obviously a great team as seen in there excellent K/9; GB% and a good BB/9 rates. But you have to figure at some point there will be more base runners, and that it’s unlikely they can keep the LOB% where it’s at.

[David]

Fangraphs post on the Cubs historic BABIP allowed

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/another-thing-at-which-these-cubs-are-best/

 

I know there is not much to be concerned with the Cubs, even so I will say with the cavet that I believe the Cubs are a fantastic team and I have no doubts about their ability to a) make the playoffs by winning the divison with ease or b) be well positioned to compete in the October crapshoot. So really the only discussion is how awesome are the Cubs: best team ever, historically great team or 'run of the mill' 100 win team. So I hope you will allow my 'concerns' to remain in that context and not take it as a sky is falling sort of thing, but it is me so I don't know if I earned the benefit of doubt.

 

My concern is that the pitching staff will regress quite a bit as the season goes on. These numbers are not sustainable are they? The good news is that all this would do is likely take games where we'd win by 5 runs and turn them into games we'd win by 1-2 runs. But my further concern is that I still want to pick up a top-3 type starter at the deadline, and if we are pitching as well as we are now, we might not pull the trigger on an impact guy for the playoffs.

 

So talk me off the 'historically great or only a 100 win team' ledge. Can we sustain this, is this something to keep an eye on?

 

A - Why would you have that concern? Do you think if you believe it's a potential issue, the FO doesn't? And, moreover, if the FO doesn't, do you think you're right and they're wrong? (In a lot of cases, that might be true, but in this one with this FO?)

 

B - They don't really need to do anything and picking up said "impact guy for the playoffs" isn't actually going to move the needle and improve this team's chances of doing anything. Especially, if, as you say, they've made it until late July without regressing (with respect to your concern about whether they keep pitching like this until the deadline, how that impacts this team's chances of putting up a historically good regular season, and whether that'd preclude them from making a move - even if that happens, then they'd be through 2/3 of the season with the same absurdly good results). It'd be fun if we can get a really good one, and would likely improve the long term outlook of the rotation, but it really isn't an issue and shouldn't cause any concern (even within the context that you're talking about).

[Clem Fandango]

"In Chicago" also apparently meant in the city, not while they were on the team

[jersey cubs fan]

"In Chicago" also apparently meant in the city, not while they were on the team

yes, that was the gist

[Aaron_Kennelly]

Fangraphs post on the Cubs historic BABIP allowed

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/another-thing-at-which-these-cubs-are-best/

 

I know there is not much to be concerned with the Cubs, even so I will say with the cavet that I believe the Cubs are a fantastic team and I have no doubts about their ability to a) make the playoffs by winning the divison with ease or b) be well positioned to compete in the October crapshoot. So really the only discussion is how awesome are the Cubs: best team ever, historically great team or 'run of the mill' 100 win team. So I hope you will allow my 'concerns' to remain in that context and not take it as a sky is falling sort of thing, but it is me so I don't know if I earned the benefit of doubt.

 

My concern is that the pitching staff will regress quite a bit as the season goes on. These numbers are not sustainable are they? The good news is that all this would do is likely take games where we'd win by 5 runs and turn them into games we'd win by 1-2 runs. But my further concern is that I still want to pick up a top-3 type starter at the deadline, and if we are pitching as well as we are now, we might not pull the trigger on an impact guy for the playoffs.

 

So talk me off the 'historically great or only a 100 win team' ledge. Can we sustain this, is this something to keep an eye on?

 

Also one of the commentators in the article posted this:

 

BABIP Z-Score: -4.17 (lowest since 2006)

LOB% Z-Score: 3.21 (highest since 2006)

GB% Z-Score: 2.21 (10th highest since 2006)

HR/FB Z-Score: -0.10 (171st lowest since 2006)

 

ERA-xFIP: -0.96 (widest negative spread since 2006)

ERA-FIP: -0.71 (widest negative spread since 2006)

 

IMO, there’s a lot of luck going on here. They’re obviously a great team as seen in there excellent K/9; GB% and a good BB/9 rates. But you have to figure at some point there will be more base runners, and that it’s unlikely they can keep the LOB% where it’s at.

 

Your concern is unfounded. While the BABIP should be expected to go up, we've been historically great. So we really have little reason to be concerned about anything, anyway. Also, the article mentions why were are so good at turning balls in play into outs. We have an amazing defense. And we are amazing at inducing weak contact. A lot of the stuff in that article I mentioned in my "Cubs and Weak Contact" article. But there were some things he didn't mention. He mentioned that we have a very low BABIP on fly balls and attributed this partly to having great outfield defense. And this is true. But I showed in my article that when our pitchers give up pitches that are hit in the air, they are giving them up at a high trajectory. They induce lazy fly outs. They give up fly balls at the second-lowest average exit velocity in the league, and they are getting them up in the air, and hit out to Jason Heyward. And that's not even what they are supposed to be good at. They are actually a bunch of ground ball pitchers. This is where we thrive. We give up a ton of ground balls that are hit at Addison Russell and Javier Baez.

 

We will continue to maintain a really low BABIP and a really low LOB%. It probably won't be .250 or whatever. But it's going to be low. And it will probably historically low -- somewhere in the top 1-5% of all-time. We have a bunch of really great starting pitchers that don't often walk guys, don't often give up hard contact, and have a plethora of elite defenders surrounding them. This isn't a big issue.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The Cubs BABIP is a concern in their quest to win 115 games, it is not a concern as it relates to the actual strength of the team or postseason success.