General Cubs Chit-Chat

[soccer10k]

Eff Wild got a question about teams calling up the most top prospects in a certain span. They ran it both on total top-100 prospects called up in 1 or 2 years and then also weighted the score, so calling up the #1 guy is worth 100 points and calling up #100 is worth 1 point. I think they used BA. The list goes back to 1990.

By total score, the 2015 Cubs lead the 1 year list and the 2014-15 Cubs lead the 2 year list. The 2014-15 Cubs were also tied for the most top-100 prospects called up in a 2 year span with 7.

Link here if you want to see the full list of teams with players included: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-2037-ashes-to-ashes-draft-to-draft/

[David]

https://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=BaseRuns

Cubs are currently tied with the Padres for 5th/6th in MLB in FG's BaseRuns standings.  

http://claydavenport.com/stats/standings.html

6th in 3rd order wins as well.

[CubinNY]

44 minutes ago, David said:

https://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=BaseRuns

Cubs are currently tied with the Padres for 5th/6th in MLB in FG's BaseRuns standings.  

http://claydavenport.com/stats/standings.html

6th in 3rd order wins as well.

Maybe the will win the WS for Third-order wins

[mul21]

This is just me spitballing since he's not even actually available yet, but any thoughts on kicking the tires on Keuchel?  1.13 ERA and missing some bats with 28K in 32 IP.  GB rate is good but allowed a 1.25 WHIP but who knows how much of that was bad defense related with all the GBs.

[Tryptamine]

25 minutes ago, mul21 said:

This is just me spitballing since he's not even actually available yet, but any thoughts on kicking the tires on Keuchel?  1.13 ERA and missing some bats with 28K in 32 IP.  GB rate is good but allowed a 1.25 WHIP but who knows how much of that was bad defense related with all the GBs.

7.88 K/9 and 3.38 BB/9, along with a 4.20 FIP and 4.01 xFIP tell me that's basically a mirage. I don't think it would be anymore beneficial than throwing Assad in the rotation. 

[UMFan83]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Maybe the will win the WS for Third-order wins

That's funny (read: sad) that the Cubs should be leading the division by almost 10 games going by third-order wins.

[David]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Maybe the will win the WS for Third-order wins

awesome joke lmao!

[17 Seconds]

we're going to be a pretty attractive destination for ohtani if we make a competitive offer

[CubinNY]

28 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

That's funny (read: sad) that the Cubs should be leading the division by almost 10 games going by third-order wins.

It's not sad. It means the model doesn't reflect reality very well right now. If the model is valid and they continue on this path they should win the division. So take solace in that. 

Over the last 20 years, we've been conditioned to statistics telling us things we don't know. Well in some cases, that's true. "All things equal the data show X should be better". Well, that's not the end of the story because all things are never equal. The question is why? Kyle and others like to chalk that up to luck (variability). But luck is a black box you can put anything into. There is obviously luck involved in the equation, but how much? are there other variables at work? What are they? Can the Cubs do anything about those variables? and on and on.

When we see a stat that is supposed to model reality, and it doesn't, it doesn't mean that reality is off, it means that the model is not particularly good at what it is supposed to do. It could be because it needs more data or it could be for other reasons, but reality is never wrong. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by CubinNY

[sneakypower]

i agree with the sentiment our record isn't perfectly representative but it would be nice at the very least for run differential stats (to serve their intended purpose) to somehow be able to filter out hr derbys off backup catchers and a manager cruelly letting his pitcher wear a 13-spot

[David]

7 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

i agree with the sentiment our record isn't perfectly representative but it would be nice at the very least for run differential stats (to serve their intended purpose) to somehow be able to filter out hr derbys off backup catchers and a manager cruelly letting his pitcher wear a 13-spot

3rd order does adjust for quality of opponent, but I'm not sure how granular it gets.  You might know better than I.

Also, I don't think they've changed that much from where they were 2 days ago.

Edited August 3, 2023 by David

[mul21]

21 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

i agree with the sentiment our record isn't perfectly representative but it would be nice at the very least for run differential stats (to serve their intended purpose) to somehow be able to filter out hr derbys off backup catchers and a manager cruelly letting his pitcher wear a 13-spot

Is that really a big factor though?  There was going to be one pitcher or another that had to wear it whether it was the 20 run game or they put in actual pen guys and had tired arms later in the series.  Live to fight another day when you're already beaten or minimize the damage now and sacrifice the possibility of winning a game in a couple days.  With the state of the Reds pitching staff right now, I'm not sure it would have mattered much either way.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 hour ago, sneakypower said:

i agree with the sentiment our record isn't perfectly representative but it would be nice at the very least for run differential stats (to serve their intended purpose) to somehow be able to filter out hr derbys off backup catchers and a manager cruelly letting his pitcher wear a 13-spot

I didn't have the patience to do it with every team, but capping per-game at +/- 5 runs seems to have the same impact on the Cubs as it does to the Dodgers and Braves, dropping the net total by ~35.

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, sneakypower said:

i agree with the sentiment our record isn't perfectly representative but it would be nice at the very least for run differential stats (to serve their intended purpose) to somehow be able to filter out hr derbys off backup catchers and a manager cruelly letting his pitcher wear a 13-spot

This article is a week old now (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-cubs-are-finally-putting-their-run-differential-to-good-use/), but long story short, besides the last two nights, we weren't getting much benefit from those situations:

 

The Cubs have blown 21 leads, but they also boast 22 comeback wins, per Baseball Reference. Meanwhile, their 10-12 record in one-run games is bad but not atrocious. On top of that, they haven’t faced any more position players pitching than the average team, and in fact, they rank dead last in run value produced against position players, per Baseball Savant. They also rank ninth-last in run value with a position player of their own on the mound. Clearly, they aren’t padding their stats in non-competitive at-bats.

The Cubs have been on the winning end of blowouts more often than not, and they’ve shut out their opponents more often than they’ve been shut out. That said, even if you remove the blowouts (5+ runs), they still have a +13 run differential, or a .520 Pythagorean expected winning percentage per Baseball Reference’s calculation. If you remove the shutouts, they still have a +25 run differential and a .526 winning percentage. All this to say, the Cubs haven’t just run up their run differential with a few lopsided victories. And even if they had, it’s not entirely fair to look at the numbers without blowouts and shutouts – that’s how good teams win.

[Tim]

3 hours ago, CubinNY said:

There is obviously luck involved in the equation, but how much? are there other variables at work? What are they? Can the Cubs do anything about those variables? and on and on.

Well, we could ask the hitters to get all their hits and walks in a single inning while asking the pitchers to spread out what they give up as much as possible.

If they can't control that then there's going to be a lot of sequencing luck involved.

[David]

It's not as simple as calling it a correction, because there's such a thing as gambler's fallacy (even if there were to be a correction, it would be to what their baseline should be, rather than a full on recovery from the underperformance - i.e. if they're truly a .550 team but started out playing like a  .400 team, they should be expected to play .550 going forward, not whatever it takes to get from .400 to .550 overall), but given that the RD/pythag and other related formulas have said the Cubs were better than their record way back when they were 10 games under .500 and they have proceeded to follow that up with this pretty unlikely-seeming run to get back to over .500, I wonder what changed other than predominantly luck.

 

But maybe it was just getting Mancini and Hosmer the hell out of here.

 

Also worth pointing out that they're at this point despite missing a decent bit of Steele, Bellinger, and Swanson's seasons.

Edited August 3, 2023 by David

[CubinNY]

1 hour ago, Tim said:

Well, we could ask the hitters to get all their hits and walks in a single inning while asking the pitchers to spread out what they give up as much as possible.

If they can't control that then there's going to be a lot of sequencing luck involved.

Luck is what we go to when we don't know the real reason. 

[squally1313]

11 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Luck is what we go to when we don't know the real reason. 

I mean, no, in this case a large part of it is definitely luck. 

[CubinNY]

43 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I mean, no, in this case a large part of it is definitely luck. 

You say that without any evidence. It's a matter of faith.

Is it luck that the Reds 3rd baseman can't field a ground ball or Votto can no longer handle first? or whatever. Or Ross kept putting in relief pitchers who couldn't throw strikes or command the zone when throwing strikes? There is a lot of stuff that is controllable that happens in games. Is a seeing-eye bloop double lucky or a pitcher making a good pitch and a hitter doing one better by putting wood on it and it landing safely? I guess it depends on one's disposition with regard to skill (pitching and hitting) and outcome. Luck favors skill, it's not a 50/50 proposition. 

[Eeyore]

It's TWTW

[Hairyducked Idiot]

8 hours ago, sneakypower said:

i agree with the sentiment our record isn't perfectly representative but it would be nice at the very least for run differential stats (to serve their intended purpose) to somehow be able to filter out hr derbys off backup catchers and a manager cruelly letting his pitcher wear a 13-spot

Working as intended. Good teams are more likely to have those things happen for them 

[squally1313]

4 hours ago, CubinNY said:

You say that without any evidence. It's a matter of faith.

Is it luck that the Reds 3rd baseman can't field a ground ball or Votto can no longer handle first? or whatever. Or Ross kept putting in relief pitchers who couldn't throw strikes or command the zone when throwing strikes? There is a lot of stuff that is controllable that happens in games. Is a seeing-eye bloop double lucky or a pitcher making a good pitch and a hitter doing one better by putting wood on it and it landing safely? I guess it depends on one's disposition with regard to skill (pitching and hitting) and outcome. Luck favors skill, it's not a 50/50 proposition. 

We have a .358 BABIP in this fifteen game stretch. Like 30 points higher than any other team. If running a high BABIP (like, a > .320) was a skill, someone would have figured it out by now. Hit the ball hard, as many times as you can, to get the odds in your favor. But in a small sample size like this, it's mostly luck. Like, what about 'it landing safely' isn't luck to you? Did the hitter scan the field real quick and find an uncovered spot? If so, they should just always do that!

[CubinNY]

11 hours ago, squally1313 said:

We have a .358 BABIP in this fifteen game stretch. Like 30 points higher than any other team. If running a high BABIP (like, a > .320) was a skill, someone would have figured it out by now. Hit the ball hard, as many times as you can, to get the odds in your favor. But in a small sample size like this, it's mostly luck. Like, what about 'it landing safely' isn't luck to you? Did the hitter scan the field real quick and find an uncovered spot? If so, they should just always do that!

The outcome is whatever happened. You make an attribute about that outcome that is in no way an explanation of the outcome.  it's an attribution. You could say a hard line drive that gets caught is bad luck or a bloop that drops is good luck. It doesn't matter what you call it. Both may be statistically unlikely outcomes, but luck has little to do with it except it is a convenient and common way for people to talk based on our shared verbal histories. Humans have a much longer history attributing events that are not easily understandable to mysterious entities than they do to physics and science. In other words, a guy who can make contact more often is likely to be considered more lucky than a guy who strikes out more. There are likely other unknown variables at work as well. Where luck (chance) comes into play may be weather events, etc. that are not controllable skills.  

Edited August 4, 2023 by CubinNY

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This entire conversation is why I prefer the term "variance" to "luck".

When you describe the difference between average expected outcome from inputs and observed outcome as "luck," there is always people who will resist the explanation because it feels like you're describing some innate attribute.

 

 

[David]

12 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

This entire conversation is why I prefer the term "variance" to "luck".

When you describe the difference between average expected outcome from inputs and observed outcome as "luck," there is always people who will resist the explanation because it feels like you're describing some innate attribute.

 

 

He's still going to resist it lol.  He even mentioned that you like to call it "variability" a few posts up.