Brewers (TBD) vs Cubs (TBD): 10/9/25, 8:08pm

[Irrelevant Dude]

5 hours ago, ILMindState said:

Someone bought me spotted cow and I'm torn because I'm not sure if drinking it would curse the Brewers or support them.

I like to go against the grain.  Drink it in defiance (and because it's good).

[Jason Ross]

30 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

Shaw should not be in the lineup tonight

He's been bad. But he probably should remain in the lineup. 

Tonight looks like a close game. I like Willi Castro in certain circumstances, but tonight is a night the Cubs will probably need to create their own variance to win. His glove is the best skill either of the two have, his base running might be the second. Castro, even if we think he might be a better option offensively, considering how good Peralta is, probably isn't enough to offset the other two. 

[s2obed]

Same lineup tonight 

[Soul]

So the Cubs have to solve a tough pitcher to keep their season alive.  Boyd has to pitch better than he did in game 1.

In other words, Cubs have to play good playoff baseball.  Nobody gets easy matchups at this level.

[Wilson A2000]

40 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

He's been bad. But he probably should remain in the lineup. 

Tonight looks like a close game. I like Willi Castro in certain circumstances, but tonight is a night the Cubs will probably need to create their own variance to win. His glove is the best skill either of the two have, his base running might be the second. Castro, even if we think he might be a better option offensively, considering how good Peralta is, probably isn't enough to offset the other two. 

Shaw has to get on to use his speed and his .250 OBP and 0 hits in the playoffs is not cutting it. They both hit righties about the same in the regular season. Shaw has some slightly better running and fielding metrics, but an o-fer in the playoffs is not surpassing that in my book, 

I’m also ready for Seiya in LF, Tucker in RF, and Ballesteros as DH. 

Edited October 9, 2025 by Wilson A2000

[DrCub]

3 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

Post-season games are not easy wins. It’s butthole clinching time from here on out.

That’s gross and homophobic!!!

[Rcal10]

42 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

Shaw has to get on to use his speed and his .250 OBP and 0 hits in the playoffs is not cutting it. They both hit righties about the same in the regular season. Shaw has some slightly better running and fielding metrics, but an o-fer in the playoffs is not surpassing that in my book, 

I’m also ready for Seiya in LF, Tucker in RF, and Ballesteros as DH. 

So sit Happ, who homered against Peralta. Put a guy who can’t run well and is still injured in right and move Seiya to left. Basically weaken two positions in the outfield so Ballestaros can get AB. Sounds like a great idea.

[Jason Ross]

56 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

Shaw has to get on to use his speed and his .250 OBP and 0 hits in the playoffs is not cutting it. They both hit righties about the same in the regular season. Shaw has some slightly better running and fielding metrics, but an o-fer in the playoffs is not surpassing that in my book, 

I’m also ready for Seiya in LF, Tucker in RF, and Ballesteros as DH. 

Shaw has a 110 wRC+ vs RHP since he fixed his mechanics. We should not be using full season data for him. He's hit RHP better, he is a significantly better fielder (one of the best in DRS at the position) and offers base running valuing. This isn't the night for Castro, recency bias is about the only thing going for Castro right now. I know Shaw hasn't looked great, but it's 6 games. He was hitting quite well the last week of the season. 

Starting Shaw is probably the best choice despite the recency bias. 

[Wilson A2000]

20 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Shaw has a 110 wRC+ vs RHP since he fixed his mechanics. We should not be using full season data for him. He's hit RHP better, he is a significantly better fielder (one of the best in DRS at the position) and offers base running valuing. This isn't the night for Castro, recency bias is about the only thing going for Castro right now. I know Shaw hasn't looked great, but it's 6 games. He was hitting quite well the last week of the season. 

Starting Shaw is probably the best choice despite the recency bias. 

How’s the recency bias for Shaw working? He hasn’t looked great - how does a corpse look?

Edited October 9, 2025 by Wilson A2000

[Eeyore]

7 hours ago, Brian707 said:

 

 

Me when realizing I can watch the entirety of the game in peace as it starts when the kids go to bed

It's when sad, old donkeys go to bed as well 😞

[Wilson A2000]

32 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So sit Happ, who homered against Peralta. Put a guy who can’t run well and is still injured in right and move Seiya to left. Basically weaken two positions in the outfield so Ballestaros can get AB. Sounds like a great idea.

The Cubs have hitting problems right now and they need their best hitters in the game. I’m ready to lose a new way if necessary. 

[Jason Ross]

14 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

How’s the recency bias for Shaw working? He hasn’t looked great - how does a corpse look?

Much like a previous coin flip does not inform the next, what Shaw has done over the last 5 games doesn't necessarily inform what will occur tonight.

Shaw has been the better hitter against RHP since he became a pull heavy hitter. Matt Shaw's highest wOBA is against the changeup, a pitch Freddy Peralta features heavily and has been around .100 points of wOBA better than Castro against. While Castro has the advantage on fastballs, it's around a .15 point split, meaning, again, against the pitches Peralta will throw over 70% of the time, Shaw has the advantage. He's a significantly better defender, and in a game in which runs are likely going to be at a premium for the Cubs offense, stopping the Brewers from scoring is going to be equally as important, and is a better base runner. 

I just wrote an article calling for Castro to start against Priester because he's significantly worse than LHH, especially when Imanaga was on the mound, someone who throws almost exclusively flyballs. Boyd, while not a GB% merchant, is far more likely to see balls hit on the ground, especially when the wind is going to stop things from flying out.

You are mostly arguing a change for a changes sake. Would you like to provide data to suggest Willi Castro is a better option tonight other than "Over his last 20 PA's, Matt Shaw hasn't been super good?" which is not a statistically significant data set to begin with? I get it, Shaw hasn't looked good, but the data outside of that suggests Shaw is the better dice roll. Sitting him is more emotional than logical.

[Caesar]

Wind will be aided to left so this does not bode well for Boyd. Wind is blowing from RF so Tucker,Busch and Happ will have balls batted down. Suzuki, Kelly and Swanson will be your power tonight. Peralta has the upper hand as far as keeping the ball in the park. Boyd will have to be on his game.

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, Caesar said:

Wind will be aided to left so this does not bode well for Boyd. Wind is blowing from RF so Tucker,Busch and Happ will have balls batted down. Suzuki, Kelly and Swanson will be your power tonight. Peralta has the upper hand as far as keeping the ball in the park. Boyd will have to be on his game.

Freddy Peralta surrendered 21 home runs this year. He surrendered 26 the prior two years. 10.8% of fly balls hit off of Peralta were home runs. He threw 176 and 2/3rds innings. 

Matthew Boyd surrendered 19 home runs on the year. I'd provide data from the previous years, but he was hurt and didn't pitch a fully amount of innings, so it's not really relevant. 8.4% of fly balls hit off of Boyd were home runs. Rate stats are more useful, so I'll also provide last years HR/FB%, which was 8%. He threw 179 and 2/3rds innings. Even over his second half, Boyd surrendered 10% of his fly balls as home runs. 

Before we point to September, Peralta surrendered over 19% of his fly balls as home run in September. Matthew Boyd was 12%. 

So to recap: Freddy Peralta gave up more home runs, more of his fly balls left for home runs, and he threw more innings. Boyd even has been recently at keeping the ball in the park, when he was having his worst month Could you please explain how Peralta has the upper hand in keeping the ball in the park?

[Wilson A2000]

12 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Much like a previous coin flip does not inform the next, what Shaw has done over the last 5 games doesn't necessarily inform what will occur tonight.

Shaw has been the better hitter against RHP since he became a pull heavy hitter. Matt Shaw's highest wOBA is against the changeup, a pitch Freddy Peralta features heavily and has been around .100 points of wOBA better than Castro against. While Castro has the advantage on fastballs, it's around a .15 point split, meaning, again, against the pitches Peralta will throw over 70% of the time, Shaw has the advantage. He's a significantly better defender, and in a game in which runs are likely going to be at a premium for the Cubs offense, stopping the Brewers from scoring is going to be equally as important, and is a better base runner. 

I just wrote an article calling for Castro to start against Priester because he's significantly worse than LHH, especially when Imanaga was on the mound, someone who throws almost exclusively flyballs. Boyd, while not a GB% merchant, is far more likely to see balls hit on the ground, especially when the wind is going to stop things from flying out.

You are mostly arguing a change for a changes sake. Would you like to provide data to suggest Willi Castro is a better option tonight other than "Over his last 20 PA's, Matt Shaw hasn't been super good?" which is not a statistically significant data set to begin with? I get it, Shaw hasn't looked good, but the data outside of that suggests Shaw is the better dice roll. Sitting him is more emotional than logical.

You sound really bad when you say “Shaw hasn’t looked good.” We are way beyond Shaw not looking good. We are in “Go up to the plate and don’t swing and hopefully you can get a walk or get hit by a pitch” territory.

[javy knows my name]

1 hour ago, DrCub said:

That’s gross and homophobic!!!

You're the absolute worst 

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

You sound really bad when you say “Shaw hasn’t looked good.” We are way beyond Shaw not looking good. We are in “Go up to the plate and don’t swing and hopefully you can get a walk or get hit by a pitch” territory.

And we have no idea how Willi Castro would have looked in the same plate appearances, so what someone looks like is really just an anedcote. He's been a worse hitter overall since Shaw reworked his swing. 

Again, I ask you to provide data to suggest Willi Castro would be a better option tonight? If you don't have data than you are using emotion to make a decision. Listen, you're a fan, I'm not going to eat your lunch for that - I'm a fan too, I get it. But we pay Craig Counsell to make baseball decisions based upon more than feelings for this exact reason and why they don't hire fans to do the job. So unless you have a legitimate reason over what has so far boiled down to vibes and feels, than Matt Shaw is the better roll of the dice. It doesn't mean it's going to work out, but all you can do is pick the best dice to roll, everything else is unknown.

[SpongeWorthy]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

And we have no idea how Willi Castro would have looked in the same plate appearances, so what someone looks like is really just an anedcote. He's been a worse hitter overall since Shaw reworked his swing. 

Again, I ask you to provide data to suggest Willi Castro would be a better option tonight? If you don't have data than you are using emotion to make a decision. Listen, you're a fan, I'm not going to eat your lunch for that - I'm a fan too, I get it. But we pay Craig Counsell to make baseball decisions based upon more than feelings for this exact reason. So unless if you have a legitimate reason over what has so far boiled down to vibes and feels, than Matt Shaw is the better roll of the dice. It doesn't mean it's going to work out, but all you can do is pick the best dice to roll, everything else is unknown.

if we pay Craig counsell to make decisions based upon more than feelings then implicitly we pay him to make decisions on factors in addition to pure data

taking calculated risks with the lineup and having them pay off at a clip higher than what a replacement level manager would get us is part of what he gets paid for too or it ought to be

[CUBDOM4life]

I don’t understand what people think Willi Castro would provide over Shaw 

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, SpongeWorthy said:

if we pay Craig counsell to make decisions based upon more than feelings then implicitly we pay him to make decisions on factors in addition to pure data

taking calculated risks with the lineup and having them pay off at a clip higher than what a replacement level manager would get us is part of what he gets paid for too or it ought to be

Well, you must be able to provide data to suggest your claim, my friend! So please do. 

1. How many moves pay off for a replacement level manager?
2. How many moves have paid off for Craig Counsell?

What are we defining as "calculated risks" to begin with? Frankly, between Shaw and Castro, either would be a "risk". In fact, any lineup decision at all is a risk.

One of my least favorite discussions every year is the "I hate my manager" nonsense. I have never met a single fan base who liked their coach on the overall. Eagles fans hate Nick Sirianni. Cubs fans hated David Ross and now hate Craig Counsell. Any time a team signs a coach from a former organization, all you hear about from that organization is fans claiming they sucked. And I highly suspect it's because they never get credit for anything they do "correct" - most of what they do "correct" is accredited to players. What fans remember are things they don't like "I think Javier Assad should have started Game 1" for example is an easy thing to blame Counsell for because we don't know what Assad would have done and we know Boyd pitched bad. Or times when managers make the right call and it doesn't go according to plan; nothing is fool proof. It's probably one of the most nonsensical arguments fans have. It's not to say there aren't bad coaches/managers that exist, but Counsell is a good manager most of the time. David Ross was a good manager most of the time. 

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, CUBDOM4life said:

I don’t understand what people think Willi Castro would provide over Shaw 

He represents a change. And I very much think large sections of fan bases view change as action. Thus, inserting Willi Castro is "Craig Counsell looking to kick start the offense" and not "Craig Counsell is playing the statistically worse roll of the dice". It's also easy to want a different outcome than the one given; it represents a free argument. Because we won't know what Castro would have done, it creates a scenario in people's heads of the best case scenario as opposed to the likely outcome that Castro does worse than Shaw.

I don't meant that to sound holier than thou, it's just an emotional response to a question demanding an answer that is not emotional and fans, in general, are emotional beings. 

[SpongeWorthy]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Well, you must be able to provide data to suggest your claim, my friend! So please do. 

1. How many moves pay off for a replacement level manager?
2. How many moves have paid off for Craig Counsell?

What are we defining as "calculated risks" to begin with? Frankly, between Shaw and Castro, either would be a "risk". In fact, any lineup decision at all is a risk.

One of my least favorite discussions every year is the "I hate my manager" nonsense. I have never met a single fan base who liked their coach on the overall. Eagles fans hate Nick Sirianni. Cubs fans hated David Ross and now hate Craig Counsell. Any time a team signs a coach from a former organization, all you hear about from that organization is fans claiming they sucked. And I highly suspect it's because they never get credit for anything they do "correct" - most of what they do "correct" is accredited to players. What fans remember are things they don't like "I think Javier Assad should have started Game 1" for example is an easy thing to blame Counsell for because we don't know what Assad would have done and we know Boyd pitched bad. Or times when managers make the right call and it doesn't go according to plan; nothing is fool proof. It's probably one of the most nonsensical arguments fans have. It's not to say there aren't bad coaches/managers that exist, but Counsell is a good manager most of the time. David Ross was a good manager most of the time. 

The evidentiary burden is always on the highest paid manager in the game and this is a good thing

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, SpongeWorthy said:

The evidentiary burden is always on the highest paid manager in the game and this is a good thing

So you get to create terms and statistics but Craig Counsell has to come on to North Side Baseball to provide evidence to refute them? That is nonsensical. 

So let's go back to my original questions:

1. How many moves does a replacement level manager have 'pay off'?
2. How many moves has Craig Counsell 'paid off'? 

We don't just get to make things up. Provide data to support your claims. This is base level argumentative writing.

[SpongeWorthy]

no im not going to do any of that dweeb 

[Jason Ross]

Just now, SpongeWorthy said:

no im not going to do any of that dweeb 

"I'm not going to provide any evidence to support my claim" is the first thing someone says when they have no evidence and are backed into a corner. Calling someone a name is the second. 

My 13 year old students under the concept of claim-evidence-reasoning. You do too.

So I will ask a third time, provide evidence for your claims. While everyone is afforded the right to have an opinion, not all opinions are equal.