General Cubs Chit-Chat

[Cubswin11]

I don’t know how it wouldn’t help a lot of our starters, Hendricks, Q, Yu and Lester all would seem to get a boost. I agree with the idea it does seem our main offensive guys didn’t get a real boost so in theory would benefit/maintain value or power in a de-juiced ball league.

[squally1313]

I don’t know how it wouldn’t help a lot of our starters, Hendricks, Q, Yu and Lester all would seem to get a boost. I agree with the idea it does seem our main offensive guys didn’t get a real boost so in theory would benefit/maintain value or power in a de-juiced ball league.

 

Same argument, but in reverse. It's going to help starters on every team.

 

Looking at the lack of a 'boost' for our main guys and attributing it to 'well they just hit no doubters regardless' and then just expecting a regression for everyone else except them is not really an approach I want anyone making decisions to take.

[Cubswin11]

I don’t know how it wouldn’t help a lot of our starters, Hendricks, Q, Yu and Lester all would seem to get a boost. I agree with the idea it does seem our main offensive guys didn’t get a real boost so in theory would benefit/maintain value or power in a de-juiced ball league.

 

Same argument, but in reverse. It's going to help starters on every team.

 

Looking at the lack of a 'boost' for our main guys and attributing it to 'well they just hit no doubters regardless' and then just expecting a regression for everyone else except them is not really an approach I want anyone making decisions to take.

Well, yeah everyone in theory gets a boost but I think some of the Cubs players haven't benefited as much (or been hurt by it more) than a lot of others and will benefit more from it going back to the old ball.

 

Quintna especially seems like he might get a boost, HR/FB rates of 5%, 8.9% and 9.5% in 2014-2016 then it spiked to 13.2%, 14.7% and 12.1% 2017-2019. Overall from 2014-2016 he had the 3rd best HR/FB rate in MLB, finishing 2nd, 10th and 6th in the three years individually. From 2017-2019 he fell all the way to 51st overall during that span. I think there's an argument he's been disproportionately affected by it. The last two years Hendricks has given up more HRs than any time in his career, Darvish has always given up a good chunk of HRs but he saw a spike this year too, Lester was at 16, 21, 21 14-16' and has been 26, 24, 26 the last 3 years (there's probably some age/diminished stuff at play here so maybe that's just what he is). I think it's a reasonable argument to think we may benefit more on the margins than other teams if they go back to the old ball.

 

I'm not saying don't change anything and bank on things improving just because the ball might switch back, but it could be a nice unexpected boost to us (again on the margins) more so than other teams.

[squally1313]

I don't know the general consensus for when these new balls came into play. The HR rate has been steadily increasing over the last 10 years (with a couple blips) due to a variety of factors, but the biggest jump was from 2018 to 2019 (12.7% to 15.3%). If it's just this year, then Quintana's HR rate jumping three years ago doesn't really give me a lot of comfort.

 

Hendricks isn't a huge concern given his overall performance. He talked about throwing up in the zone more often this year, and based on my limited knowledge, I would think that might lead to more fly balls/home runs, with the idea being that overall you get weaker contact. His HR/FB rate going down from 14.8% to 12% to 10.4% the last three years (potentially) backs that up.

 

I agree that Darvish's spiked, though it went down in the second half if he puts it together. Not super concerned if he can continue the huge K/BB ratio...Verlander and Cole were both top 15 in HRs allowed this year and it didn't seem to bother them much.

[Cubswin11]

I don't know the general consensus for when these new balls came into play.

I think it’s generally accepted they were juiced for all of 2018 and 2019, they possibly were here for all of 2017 and if they weren’t they came in some time during the year.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't know the general consensus for when these new balls came into play.

I think it’s generally accepted they were juiced for all of 2018 and 2019, they possibly were here for all of 2017 and if they weren’t they came in some time during the year.

 

I'm going from hazy memory and selective interpreting the data, but my thinking is that launch angle focus is responsible for a general lift in HR rate, and the juiced ball added some on top of that in 2017 and 2019 in particular.

 

EDIT: Here's the number of teams that reached 200 HR since the strike, which got me thinking in those terms.

 

1995    2
1996    8
1997    3
1998    9
1999    10
2000    11
2001    10
2002    5
2003    5
2004    10
2005    5
2006    7
2007    5
2008    4
2009    5
2010    3
2011    3
2012    5
2013    1
2014    1
2015    4
2016    12
2017    17
2018    11
2019    23

[squally1313]

I don't know the general consensus for when these new balls came into play.

I think it’s generally accepted they were juiced for all of 2018 and 2019, they possibly were here for all of 2017 and if they weren’t they came in some time during the year.

 

I'm going from hazy memory and selective interpreting the data, but my thinking is that launch angle focus is responsible for a general lift in HR rate, and the juiced ball added some on top of that in 2017 and 2019 in particular.

 

I thought about launch angle as well, and then concluded that that would just lead to more fly balls, rather than an increase in HR/FB. But FB rate is actually lower in 2019 than it was in 2010, while HR/FB rate has almost always increased, so probably something to that.

 

Worth pointing out that 2018 actually had a lower HR/FB rate than 2017.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah the launch angle focus/revolution and players changing approach, scouting better/smarter with more tech and data available and players embracing it, conditioning, etc definitely is a factor here. I still think the ball is mostly responsible for the spike but it’s not the only reason.

[Bertz]

I don't know the general consensus for when these new balls came into play.

 

ASB 2015. Then 2018 took a small step back, and 2019's ball really went insane

[Clem Fandango]

MLB admitted that the pill inside the ball was of a different size which may have been affecting the trajectory and distance the ball travels since they went with a different manufacturer for their baseballs, iirc.

[Cubswin11]

MLB admitted that the pill inside the ball was of a different size which may have been affecting the trajectory and distance the ball travels since they went with a different manufacturer for their baseballs, iirc.

I don’t think they changed the manufacturer, did they? They just said the manufacturer is given specs and allowed to be within a range of error/variance and they may have changed some things but were within the range allowed and it was just manufacturing variance I thought. They also lowered the seams a bit on top of the pill change.

[NonProfitCow]

MLB admitted that the pill inside the ball was of a different size which may have been affecting the trajectory and distance the ball travels since they went with a different manufacturer for their baseballs, iirc.

I don’t think they changed the manufacturer, did they? They just said the manufacturer is given specs and allowed to be within a range of error/variance and they may have changed some things but were within the range allowed and it was just manufacturing variance I thought. They also lowered the seams a bit on top of the pill change.

MLB owns the manufacturer (Rawlings).

[Cubswin11]

MLB admitted that the pill inside the ball was of a different size which may have been affecting the trajectory and distance the ball travels since they went with a different manufacturer for their baseballs, iirc.

I don’t think they changed the manufacturer, did they? They just said the manufacturer is given specs and allowed to be within a range of error/variance and they may have changed some things but were within the range allowed and it was just manufacturing variance I thought. They also lowered the seams a bit on top of the pill change.

MLB owns the manufacturer (Rawlings).

Didn’t know that, I do know the balls are manufactured in like Costa Rica or Honduras or some Central/South American country. Even though MLB owns Rawlings I doubt they get much in to the actual manufacturing business, guessing Rawlings has a decent amount of autonomy to do what they do best with the nuts and bolts of the day to to minutiae. Not to say MLB didn’t put them under a directive to change the ball.

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[squally1313]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Not bad. Besides when I was actually watching the game, I don't think I could have told you the sequence of events that led to Michale McDonald or whatever his name is in the last AB. I think the whole Javy bunt strikeout rage probably blocked it from my memory, but good for JHey to contribute to the actual game, not just the locker room.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Not bad. Besides when I was actually watching the game, I don't think I could have told you the sequence of events that led to Michale McDonald or whatever his name is in the last AB. I think the whole Javy bunt strikeout rage probably blocked it from my memory, but good for JHey to contribute to the actual game, not just the locker room.

I remember being livid with Maddon during the game, but I had forgotten the deets. Holy horsefeathers.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Pleasantly surprised that the video highlights that Hendricks struck out Santana and went 1-2-3 in the 5th if not for a heinous 2-2 call.

[Andy]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Not bad. Besides when I was actually watching the game, I don't think I could have told you the sequence of events that led to Michale McDonald or whatever his name is in the last AB. I think the whole Javy bunt strikeout rage probably blocked it from my memory, but good for JHey to contribute to the actual game, not just the locker room.

I always remember that part but only because Fangraphs (I think it was them) wrote a great article about it a day or two after the game.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

98% of that video reminds me of how hard Maddon tried to lose that game. But I'll always defend a quick Hendricks hook. Dude does have a tendency to lose it after 90 pitches sometimes.

[d_money]

98% of that video reminds me of how hard Maddon tried to lose that game. But I'll always defend a quick Hendricks hook. Dude does have a tendency to lose it after 90 pitches sometimes.

On the flip side, Tito was up 3-1 and loss 3 straight.

[SouthSideRyan]

That horsefeathering bunt call

[Banedon]

I still get horsefeathering chills from that final ground ball.

[WrigleyField 22]

I still get horsefeathering chills from that final ground ball.

Crazy not even Joe Buck can stop the chills from happening.

 

Now play the Hughes call to watch me break down.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Joe Buck’s voice still makes me think of that final out. He will forever be my friend for that.

[WrigleyField 22]

Joe Buck’s voice still makes me think of that final out. He will forever be my friend for that.

We had started streaming the Cubs radio pbp at some point during game 6, but it was a little tricky to sync up perfectly. I can't even remember which pbp we were listening to by the time those final outs of game 7 rolled around, but it feels like I listened to them both live.