The Value of Kyle Schwarber

[minnesotacubsfan]

If we had a WS in the bag, like last year, I'd be tempted to get Miller for prospects not named Russell, Rizzo, Bryant, or Schwarber. As it is, I want to hoard them to get a true difference maker and that starts somewhere around the name of Chris Sale and goes up, and the aforementioned names apply

 

I want as many shots as this as possible

[badger]

It's thoroughly enjoyable reading the smart guys on this site.

[stitchface]

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first.

 

So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

[nolanwood]

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first.

 

So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

 

 

A measurable amount, huh? How much, exactly, would that be?

 

I'm also curious to hear your explanation of why "the crapshoot thing" is overstated.

 

If Miller and/or Chapman were on the team, would we have won the NLCS last year?

 

What if the April/May version of this team is what we see in the postseason? We won 11-4 in series matchups in April/May (with one tie). That equates to .733333 of series matchups we won. What difference would Miller and/or Chapman have made, and is that worth Kyle Schwarber?

 

If we trade Schwarber (which I would prefer doesn't happen), shouldn't we address that lack of pitching depth instead and get a controllable TOR pitcher? That contribution would be far greater, both this year and in the future.

Edited July 22, 2016 by nolanwood

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first.

 

So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

 

 

A measurable amount, huh? How much, exactly, would that be?

 

I'm also curious to hear your explanation of why "the crapshoot thing" is overstated.

 

If Miller and/or Chapman were on the team, would we have won the NLCS last year?

 

What if the April/May version of this team is what we see in the postseason? We won 11-4 in series matchups in April/May (with one tie). That equates to .733333 of series matchups we won. What difference would Miller and/or Chapman have made, and is that worth Kyle Schwarber?

 

We agree more with this. But to be fair, just because we probably don't win the NLCS last year even with Chapman/Miller, it doesn't mean we might not win it with them this year.

 

If Chapman also had two years of control after this one like Miller, I'd be tempted to trade Schwarbs for a lockdown bullpen. But he doesn't, so it's just not that exciting to us.

[nolanwood]

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first.

 

So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

 

 

A measurable amount, huh? How much, exactly, would that be?

 

I'm also curious to hear your explanation of why "the crapshoot thing" is overstated.

 

If Miller and/or Chapman were on the team, would we have won the NLCS last year?

 

What if the April/May version of this team is what we see in the postseason? We won 11-4 in series matchups in April/May (with one tie). That equates to .733333 of series matchups we won. What difference would Miller and/or Chapman have made, and is that worth Kyle Schwarber?

 

We agree more with this. But to be fair, just because we probably don't win the NLCS last year even with Chapman/Miller, it doesn't mean we might not win it with them this year.

 

If Chapman also had two years of control after this one like Miller, I'd be tempted to trade Schwarbs for a lockdown bullpen. But he doesn't, so it's just not that exciting to us.

 

True, although the same argument could be made that we could win that same NLCS matchup with our current roster.

 

Two years of Chapman AND Miller would definitely make things more interesting. If I had to trade Schwarber I would prefer bringing back a controllable TOR pitcher. Ultimately, I would prefer to keep him and dong teams into oblivion.

[cubfro]

I don't think some people understand that a good hitter can dominate a series just as much as a starting pitcher and more than any relief pitcher. Just look at what Murphy did to us and the Dodgers last year, or what Ortiz did to the cardinals a few years ago.

[stitchface]

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first.

 

So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

 

 

A measurable amount, huh? How much, exactly, would that be?

 

I'm also curious to hear your explanation of why "the crapshoot thing" is overstated.

 

If Miller and/or Chapman were on the team, would we have won the NLCS last year?

 

What if the April/May version of this team is what we see in the postseason? We won 11-4 in series matchups in April/May (with one tie). That equates to .733333 of series matchups we won. What difference would Miller and/or Chapman have made, and is that worth Kyle Schwarber?

 

If we trade Schwarber (which I would prefer doesn't happen), shouldn't we address that lack of pitching depth instead and get a controllable TOR pitcher? That contribution would be far greater, both this year and in the future.

 

 

I would prefer a TOR starter also, but is that even an option? Who is it? I do think Games 2 and 3 of the NLCS might have turned out differently, or maybe starters would have thrown less and been more fresh. I don't think talking about last year's NLCS is especially meaningful.

 

I think crapshoot is overstated because it isn't totally random, just difficult to predict. The impact of a dominating bullpen in a few short games could have a huge effect. Some games it might have none. But I don't think it makes any sense to say you don't have a better chance to win a short series with a dominating pen than without based on it being a crapshoot. Absolutely you have a better chance. I'm not the guy to put math to it though and I can see arguments to say its minimal. Its nonsense to say "its a crapshoot so it doesn't matter" though. When you're playing good teams, runs can be extremely important and having Chapman pitch the 6th instead of Travis Wood could swing the series.

[stitchface]

I don't think some people understand that a good hitter can dominate a series just as much as a starting pitcher and more than any relief pitcher. Just look at what Murphy did to us and the Dodgers last year, or what Ortiz did to the cardinals a few years ago.

 

I understand that perfectly. Why not have both?

[David]

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first.

 

So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

 

The crapshoot thing isn't being overstated. It's still being understated. The very fact that people are making arguments for trading Kyle Schwarber for relief help in the playoffs is practically objective proof of this.

 

The best way to maximize winning ONE World Series (nobody is saying anything about multiples) is to maximize your chances at making the playoffs numerous times. Having Kyle Schwarber for 5 years beyond this one does more to that end than Andrew Miller for a little under 2.5 (and, for that matter, Chapman for a little under half).

[stitchface]

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first.

 

So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

 

The crapshoot thing isn't being overstated. It's still being understated. The very fact that people are making arguments for trading Kyle Schwarber for relief help in the playoffs is practically objective proof of this.

 

The best way to maximize winning ONE World Series (nobody is saying anything about multiples) is to maximize your chances at making the playoffs numerous times. Having Kyle Schwarber for 5 years beyond this one does more to that end than Andrew Miller for a little under 2.5 (and, for that matter, Chapman for a little under half).

 

Except they are already virtually in this year and have an ageing pitching staff. I think those two would make the pitching pretty dominant as it shortens the outings for everyone. At this point, who do you have confidence going deep into games? Lester? What is the marginal value? Are you considering leverage? Simply comparing projected WAR is over-simplification. Where is Schwarber going to play? Who is not going to play then? I understand your point and maybe you are right, but I think it's simplified too much. Having a better team in October does give you a better chance to win.

[BigSlick]

Am I the only person that thinks HR/XBH is a totally useless and empty ratio?

 

I see the value in HR/FB, but HR/XBH seems like a totally arbitrary and not very telling stat at all.

[David]

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first.

 

So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

 

The crapshoot thing isn't being overstated. It's still being understated. The very fact that people are making arguments for trading Kyle Schwarber for relief help in the playoffs is practically objective proof of this.

 

The best way to maximize winning ONE World Series (nobody is saying anything about multiples) is to maximize your chances at making the playoffs numerous times. Having Kyle Schwarber for 5 years beyond this one does more to that end than Andrew Miller for a little under 2.5 (and, for that matter, Chapman for a little under half).

 

Except they are already virtually in this year and have an ageing pitching staff. I think those two would make the pitching pretty dominant as it shortens the outings for everyone. At this point, who do you have confidence going deep into games? Lester? What is the marginal value? Are you considering leverage? Simply comparing projected WAR is over-simplification. Where is Schwarber going to play? Who is not going to play then? I understand your point and maybe you are right, but I think it's simplified too much. Having a better team in October does give you a better chance to win.

 

The bold is precisely why it's even sillier to trade future assets off for the short term.

[David]

No matter how good this year's roster ends up being going into the playoffs, there will be close to an 80% chance it doesn't win the World Series. I don't see how much more plainly it can be put.

[stitchface]

Am I the only person that thinks HR/XBH is a totally useless and empty ratio?

 

I see the value in HR/FB, but HR/XBH seems like a totally arbitrary and not very telling stat at all.

 

 

yea, I thought that was really weird too. Sort of grasping for some stat . . .

[stitchface]

No matter how good this year's roster ends up being going into the playoffs, there will be close to an 80% chance it doesn't win the World Series. I don't see how much more plainly it can be put.

 

 

I don't think that is fact.

[David]

No matter how good this year's roster ends up being going into the playoffs, there will be close to an 80% chance it doesn't win the World Series. I don't see how much more plainly it can be put.

 

 

I don't think that is fact.

 

To a degree worth arguing about?

 

So what do you think the best team in baseball's (or the best roster you can reasonably construct, however you want to look at it) odds of winning are going into October? Assume HFA, as any best team in baseball would typically have.

[stitchface]

No matter how good this year's roster ends up being going into the playoffs, there will be close to an 80% chance it doesn't win the World Series. I don't see how much more plainly it can be put.

 

 

I don't think that is fact.

 

To a degree worth arguing about?

 

So what do you think the best team in baseball's (or the best roster you can reasonably construct, however you want to look at it) odds of winning are going into October? Assume HFA, as any best team in baseball would typically have.

 

 

For amusement's sake yes!

 

First off, it's obvious hyperbole to say "no matter how good." Do you really believe that? Where did you come up with 20%? Did you game by game chances to win? Based on what? Historical? Measuring team strength by season record? I'm not convinced it would be linear based on season's winning percentage, which seems to be the most common method.

[BigSlick]

 

 

I don't think that is fact.

 

To a degree worth arguing about?

 

So what do you think the best team in baseball's (or the best roster you can reasonably construct, however you want to look at it) odds of winning are going into October? Assume HFA, as any best team in baseball would typically have.

 

 

For amusement's sake yes!

 

First off, it's obvious hyperbole to say "no matter how good." Do you really believe that? Where did you come up with 20%? Did you game by game chances to win? Based on what? Historical? Measuring team strength by season record? I'm not convinced it would be linear based on season's winning percentage, which seems to be the most common method.

 

Lets say you wanted to be extremely generous and say the Cubs had a 66% chance against each opponent in each playoff series. That's pretty absurd, but lets say they were just that good.

 

That works out to a ~28% chance of winning the World Series over the course of 3 playoff series.

 

I don't think any team vs. another team in a short series has that high of an edge, especially against playoff teams.

[stitchface]

 

To a degree worth arguing about?

 

So what do you think the best team in baseball's (or the best roster you can reasonably construct, however you want to look at it) odds of winning are going into October? Assume HFA, as any best team in baseball would typically have.

 

 

For amusement's sake yes!

 

First off, it's obvious hyperbole to say "no matter how good." Do you really believe that? Where did you come up with 20%? Did you game by game chances to win? Based on what? Historical? Measuring team strength by season record? I'm not convinced it would be linear based on season's winning percentage, which seems to be the most common method.

 

Lets say you wanted to be extremely generous and say the Cubs had a 66% chance against each opponent in each playoff series. That's pretty absurd, but lets say they were just that good.

 

That works out to a ~28% chance of winning the World Series over the course of 3 playoff series.

 

I don't think any team vs. another team in a short series has that high of an edge, especially against playoff teams.

 

I don't know - '98 yankees? '84 Tigers?

[BigSlick]

 

 

For amusement's sake yes!

 

First off, it's obvious hyperbole to say "no matter how good." Do you really believe that? Where did you come up with 20%? Did you game by game chances to win? Based on what? Historical? Measuring team strength by season record? I'm not convinced it would be linear based on season's winning percentage, which seems to be the most common method.

 

Lets say you wanted to be extremely generous and say the Cubs had a 66% chance against each opponent in each playoff series. That's pretty absurd, but lets say they were just that good.

 

That works out to a ~28% chance of winning the World Series over the course of 3 playoff series.

 

I don't think any team vs. another team in a short series has that high of an edge, especially against playoff teams.

 

I don't know - '98 yankees? '84 Tigers?

I don't know what this is supposed to tell me

[squally1313]

No matter how good this year's roster ends up being going into the playoffs, there will be close to an 80% chance it doesn't win the World Series. I don't see how much more plainly it can be put.

 

 

I don't think that is fact.

 

To a degree worth arguing about?

 

So what do you think the best team in baseball's (or the best roster you can reasonably construct, however you want to look at it) odds of winning are going into October? Assume HFA, as any best team in baseball would typically have.

 

Just backing up David's point here.

 

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2011/7/26/2293738/team-with-best-record-seldom-wins-world-series

 

It's a 2011 article, but long story short, since they went to an 8 team playoff (and since we aren't going to be playing in the wildcard, it's essentially an 8 team playoff), the best record in baseball has won the World Series 19% of the time through 2010.

 

Since then...

 

Year, Best Record, World Series Winner

2011, Phillies, Cardinals

2012, Nationals, Giants

2013, Cardinals/Red Sox, Red Sox

2014, Angels, Giants

2015, Cardinals, Royals

 

So 1/5 or exactly the odds of what had happened before. The Cubs could add Miller, Chapman, Fernandez, and Chris Sale and probably not win the World Series this year. Make the playoffs every year for the next 8, odds will hopefully fall in our favor eventually. Schwarber does more for that than Andrew Miller's 60 innings. And no, I'm not in the least bit worried about 'finding him at bats'.

[squally1313]

 

 

For amusement's sake yes!

 

First off, it's obvious hyperbole to say "no matter how good." Do you really believe that? Where did you come up with 20%? Did you game by game chances to win? Based on what? Historical? Measuring team strength by season record? I'm not convinced it would be linear based on season's winning percentage, which seems to be the most common method.

 

Lets say you wanted to be extremely generous and say the Cubs had a 66% chance against each opponent in each playoff series. That's pretty absurd, but lets say they were just that good.

 

That works out to a ~28% chance of winning the World Series over the course of 3 playoff series.

 

I don't think any team vs. another team in a short series has that high of an edge, especially against playoff teams.

 

I don't know - '98 yankees? '84 Tigers?

 

The 1998 Yankees won 114 games for .704 winning percentage. The Cubs aren't winning 114 games (call me crazy, but I think they lose more than 11 games the rest of the year), so that's not us.

 

The 84 Tigers only won 65% of their games the entire year against the entire league, so I think it's safe to say that they don't have a 66% chance of winning against another playoff team.

 

Look, I get that it's a bit discouraging that we invest all this time to come down to what is essentially coin flips and sequencing luck. But...it is what it is. Theo knows what he's doing. Make the playoffs every year, and we'll break through.

[David]

 

Lets say you wanted to be extremely generous and say the Cubs had a 66% chance against each opponent in each playoff series. That's pretty absurd, but lets say they were just that good.

 

That works out to a ~28% chance of winning the World Series over the course of 3 playoff series.

 

I don't think any team vs. another team in a short series has that high of an edge, especially against playoff teams.

 

I don't know - '98 yankees? '84 Tigers?

 

The 1998 Yankees won 114 games for .704 winning percentage. The Cubs aren't winning 114 games (call me crazy, but I think they lose more than 11 games the rest of the year), so that's not us.

 

And it officially just hit me how far we've fallen.

[stitchface]

 

I don't know - '98 yankees? '84 Tigers?

 

The 1998 Yankees won 114 games for .704 winning percentage. The Cubs aren't winning 114 games (call me crazy, but I think they lose more than 11 games the rest of the year), so that's not us.

 

And it officially just hit me how far we've fallen.

 

So, if we improve, maybe we're back to 114 win team . . .

 

alright, I gotta go!