Regression to the Mean

[CubFaninPA]

It wasn't long after the trading deadline that the front office's not making a big trade for a starter became apparent. Multiple players hit above their career averages in the first have of the season. Historically, when established players have  better or worse first halves than their career averages, their second half performance brings their results for the year in line with those averages. This phenomenon is  a mathematical concept called Regression to the Mean. Cubs' hitting had already started its slide before the trading deadline and management surely noticed it. Why make a big trade, which would give away the best prospects, when hitting wasn't going to hold up? I, for one, am pleased that Caissie was in the lineup yesterday rather than playing for another team.

[Jason Ross]

Welcome to NSBB!

While I understand Caissie had a good day yesterday (I remain a big Caissie fan myself, might I add, just for the rest of this post), what if the Cubs had Edward Cabrera? He's been the 11th best SP in baseball since the TDL, posting a 2.94 xFIP and the ninth best K-BB ratio for starters. Caissie had a nice game yesterday but Cabrera has had four really good starts and has been worth almost a full win on his own. 

I'm not trying to drag down Caissie, only suggesting that I don't think this conversation is as easy as "Well Owen had a good game yesterday so I'm glad we kept him" there is an opportunity cost involved. What Cabrera overall would have cost is more than just Caissie, so it's not as simple as just one or the other, as well. My general point is that while I understand many people here have concluded (for whatever reason) that the slumping Cubs are the "real" Cubs (I don't agree with this) that there are universes out there where the Cubs traded Caissie and are a better team for it as much as yesterday was a fun day from the prospect. I don't think Kyle Tucker is broken forever or even the rest of the year so there's going to come a time in the near future where the Cubs aren't really playing Owen Caissie much and what Edward Cabrera is could mean more to the 2025 Cubs (and based on his control would help for a few years beyond). 

[mul21]

17 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Welcome to NSBB!

While I understand Caissie had a good day yesterday (I remain a big Caissie fan myself, might I add, just for the rest of this post), what if the Cubs had Edward Cabrera? He's been the 11th best SP in baseball since the TDL, posting a 2.94 xFIP and the ninth best K-BB ratio for starters. Caissie had a nice game yesterday but Cabrera has had four really good starts and has been worth almost a full win on his own. 

I'm not trying to drag down Caissie, only suggesting that I don't think this conversation is as easy as "Well Owen had a good game yesterday so I'm glad we kept him" there is an opportunity cost involved. What Cabrera overall would have cost is more than just Caissie, so it's not as simple as just one or the other, as well. My general point is that while I understand many people here have concluded (for whatever reason) that the slumping Cubs are the "real" Cubs (I don't agree with this) that there are universes out there where the Cubs traded Caissie and are a better team for it as much as yesterday was a fun day from the prospect. I don't think Kyle Tucker is broken forever or even the rest of the year so there's going to come a time in the near future where the Cubs aren't really playing Owen Caissie much and what Edward Cabrera is could mean more to the 2025 Cubs (and based on his control would help for a few years beyond). 

I generally agree with you on most stuff but saying this when it's obvious pitching hasn't been the problem since the deadline seems specious at best.  Would Cabrera pitching well really have benefitted the Cubs much?

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, mul21 said:

I generally agree with you on most stuff but saying this when it's obvious pitching hasn't been the problem since the deadline seems specious at best.  Would Cabrera pitching well really have benefitted the Cubs much?

Winning a game 1-0 is the same as winning it 5-4. Yes, the starting pitching has been good recently, but it could be better, just like the offense could always be worse. 

It doesn't work exactly like this, and I know I'm kind of playing with things a little bit, but what if Javier Assad didn't start in Toronto last week and Edward Cabrera did, for example? The Cubs lost 5-1, sure, but four of the runs were given up by Assad. What if we got Edward Cabrera's start against Atlanta (8-8) instead? He went 8 IP against Atlanta, struck out 11. Owen Caissie was in Iowa on August 12th, so he provided zero benefit to the Chicago Cubs. 

There is also going to, likely, come a day between today and the end of the season that Kyle Tucker turns mostly back into Kyle Tucker. Maybe it's not "140 wRC+" monster Tucker (if it's really an injury thing) but he'll probably figure it mostly out again. At that point the Cubs will likely rarely play Caissie where as Edward Cabrera will pitch every five days. 

Lots of things and lots of moving parts. Maybe Ian Happ blows out his quad tomorrow and Caissie starts the rest of the year. Maybe Cabrera blows out his elbow. There's universes and outcomes that throw all sorts of wrenches into the works. 

Mostly I'm just saying I don't think that just because Owen Caissie was good yesterday means that not trading him either makes the Cubs better or that the Cubs were right to not trade him. There's a lot of moving parts to consider. 

[Outshined_One]

4 minutes ago, mul21 said:

I generally agree with you on most stuff but saying this when it's obvious pitching hasn't been the problem since the deadline seems specious at best.  Would Cabrera pitching well really have benefitted the Cubs much?

Up to now?  Perhaps marginally, given that the Cubs' pitching has been rock solid post-TDL.

However, the key would be in the playoffs and down the stretch.  Having another SP would help juggle Horton's and Boyd's load management (although it would add a complicating factor in Cabrera's load management since he's never pitched more than 130 IP in a season) while also allowing Soroka to heal up.  Additionally, a top three of Imanaga-Boyd-Cabrera, with Horton as a potential 4th starter/long man, would be downright lethal in the playoffs.

Cabrera's team control would also be the proverbial icing on the cake.

[Bertz]

The team has played 18 games since the ASB and literally half of those have been at Wrigley with the wind blowing in.

[BigSlick]

There’s a common misconception about “regression to the mean” that one can expect that if a player (or a team, or a roulette wheel or whatever) exceeds expectations that you can expect them to play worse as they “regress” to the mean. But that’s not what a regression to mean is.

 

Let’s say we have a player who’s “true” (if such a thing exists) talent level is a .270 batting average. And let’s say they are blessed by the BABIP gods and hit .330 for the first half of the season. That players regression to mean isn’t to hit worse and to level those numbers out - if he were to regress it would be to hit closer to .270 again. 
 

Now of course you can expect there to be cold streaks along with hot streaks. And baseball players aren’t random number generators. But it’s important, I think. 

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, mul21 said:

I generally agree with you on most stuff but saying this when it's obvious pitching hasn't been the problem since the deadline seems specious at best.  Would Cabrera pitching well really have benefitted the Cubs much?

Absolutely. He would have been great now and in the future. It would allow the Cubs not to have to depend on Horton so much and give him a breather. And then next year their staff would be awesome. That said, it wasn’t just Cassie for Cabrera, I am sure. I think the ask for high end guys was crazy. So they didn’t make a move. But if you are asking would they be better off with Cabrera in the rotation and not has Cassie to come up, my answer would be, hell yes. 

[Stratos]

Unless we have too many prospects or good young players at a particular position and someone is therefore blocked (eg Torres for Chapman trade, Soler for Davis etc) I'm usually in favor of keeping a good prospect and rolling the dice on them having good value for us for 6-7 seasons than grabbing a rental.  2 months or even 1.5 years for 6-7 years is usually not logical.

Besides Soroka I think Jed did fine at the deadline given the options.  I agree overpaying for a good 1st half is also not logical.

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Unless we have too many prospects or good young players at a particular position and someone is therefore blocked (eg Torres for Chapman trade, Soler for Davis etc) I'm usually in favor of keeping a good prospect and rolling the dice on them having good value for us for 6-7 seasons than grabbing a rental.  2 months or even 1.5 years for 6-7 years is usually not logical.

Besides Soroka I think Jed did fine at the deadline given the options.  I agree overpaying for a good 1st half is also not logical.

If the trade was Cabrera for Cassie that isn’t trading for a rental. The problem is I am sure it was much more. I totally agree with you that someone like Cassie shouldn’t be considered for an actual rental. And that appeared to be the case. So, as you said, Jed did the right thing by not making a bad trade. However, I don’t think the Cubs just got lucky and had a good first half. I think they are good. They could have used more help, but not at the prices it appeared guys cost. Based on cost, I agree Jed did a decent job. Appears he got 2 decent pen arms and a good bench bat who can play anywhere. The miss was Soroka. 

[Stratos]

23 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

If the trade was Cabrera for Cassie that isn’t trading for a rental. The problem is I am sure it was much more. I totally agree with you that someone like Cassie shouldn’t be considered for an actual rental. And that appeared to be the case. So, as you said, Jed did the right thing by not making a bad trade. However, I don’t think the Cubs just got lucky and had a good first half. I think they are good. They could have used more help, but not at the prices it appeared guys cost. Based on cost, I agree Jed did a decent job. Appears he got 2 decent pen arms and a good bench bat who can play anywhere. The miss was Soroka. 

Agree.  I do think the Cubs are a good team, but also think a bunch of hitters and most of the pen played over their heads the first half and were going to regress.  The last month sucks but at the end of the year the numbers will probably look about right.  It's just weird they're almost all hot or cold at the same time and it seems to happen every year.

Hoping the Brewers regress soon too because they aren't as good as they've been obviously the last month and a half.

[Backtobanks]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

If the trade was Cabrera for Cassie that isn’t trading for a rental. The problem is I am sure it was much more. I totally agree with you that someone like Cassie shouldn’t be considered for an actual rental. And that appeared to be the case. So, as you said, Jed did the right thing by not making a bad trade. However, I don’t think the Cubs just got lucky and had a good first half. I think they are good. They could have used more help, but not at the prices it appeared guys cost. Based on cost, I agree Jed did a decent job. Appears he got 2 decent pen arms and a good bench bat who can play anywhere. The miss was Soroka. 

Apparently, I missed this trade because Castro has a slash line of .143/.143/.200 with an OPS+ of -1.

[Rcal10]

27 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Apparently, I missed this trade because Castro has a slash line of .143/.143/.200 with an OPS+ of -1.

So we are now judging a guy on what, 40 AB? So that’s it? He sucks? He was probably the best player they could have gotten. Most here wanted him, including me. But his 40 or so AB as a Cub have you convinced he sucks. Got it. 

[Ding Dong Johnson]

30 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Apparently, I missed this trade because Castro has a slash line of .143/.143/.200 with an OPS+ of -1.

Don’t be dumb. He’s a good bench bat.

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, Ding Dong Johnson said:

Don’t be dumb. He’s a good bench bat.

Agreed. At the very least he is a good bench player because he can play several positions. And overall he is a decent bat off the bench, regardless of what he has done in 35 AB as a Cub. And, even at that poor slash line he has found a way to be a big contributor in a win the Cubs probably don’t get if they didn’t have him. 

Edited August 20, 2025 by Rcal10