Question of the week: Are you ready to move on from Jed?

[PeanutPunch33]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Cubs also lead the league in men on base. So unless you put it in the correct context, no, it isn’t worth bringing up. Cubs are definitely struggling in that department. But just using the men left on base isn’t a fair guide. I am sure both Happ and, especially, Bregman have bad numbers with risp, but just showing how many they left on is only half the story. I believe I saw crazy stats in the Dbacks with risp. But if someone on their team doesn’t come up with men in scoring position as often as Happ and Bregman they leave less men on base. 

True, they do get people on base at an elite rate.  But after a near half season sample size, it doesn't seem to matter much given that they can't bring them home.  

That's actually why I think adding even just 1 more high end bat (however you want to define that, let's say an .850 ops guy) would make all the difference.  Bench Swanson, move Nico to short and get CJ Abrams and you have an offense that can compete.

[sneakypower]

having baserunners for baserunners sake is a little bit meaningless; Cubs are t-11th in runs so the blame for that offensive mediocrity falls somewhere

Seiya, Bregman, Dansby, Nico are all bottom-30 in WPA

i think it's reasonable to criticize the move-the-line philosophy when results are so middling

[PeanutPunch33]

6 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

It's only worth bringing up if we believe that hitting with RISP vs hitting without them is:
1. An independent skill
2. Repeatable and predictive

If it isn't an independent skill (as in, hitting with a runner on second base requires some sort of a skill in which hitting with a runner on first or no runners does not) and it isn't predictive and repeatable (as in we see trends year over year and through large sample sizes that show hitters across the league remain somewhat consistent) then it isn't something that we should really be focusing on.

So if we'd like to have this discussion, it's probably important for you to define those two things for us.

I definitely think it's a skill as a hitter to bring in a guy who's on 3rd base when there are 0 or 1 outs in an inning.  2 outs I can give you - and the scenario above, I can give you - but go back and watch the 1st inning from yesterday's game and tell me it isn't a problem.  

The Cubs were also not great against RISP in 2025.  It's not like this is some fluke event lol.  2 years in a row is cause for concern. 

Edited June 17 by PeanutPunch33

[Outshined_One]

15 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

The Cubs have 2 players leading the league in a very unfavorable offensive stat - you don't think it's worth bringing up?  

I don't want to resurrect 20 year old threads from the dead, but the bottom line is there is zero reason to look at RISP as a reliable offensive metric when it vacillates ludicrously year to year and even month to month across all players in MLB.

Happ and Bregman have their own issues which merit discussion, but this is like using W-L record to argue who the best pitchers in baseball are.

[Outshined_One]

2 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

I definitely think it's a skill as a hitter to bring in a guy who's on 3rd base when there are 0 or 1 outs in an inning.

You do realize that sac flies don't count for RISP, right?

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

I definitely think it's a skill as a hitter to bring in a guy who's on 3rd base when there are 0 or 1 outs in an inning.  2 outs I can give you - and the scenario above, I can give you - but go back and watch the 1st inning from yesterday's game and tell me it isn't a problem.  

No. That's an anecdote. What is the skill? You can't just say it's a skill. What is the skill?

As an example, I can define the skill of getting on base: some hitters have a better ability to to determine strikes and balls. This helps raise their ability to walk. Hitters who have better contact rates, also have an ability to get on base better. We can track these underlying skills through things like baseball savant. We can prove that hitters have a better OBP when these things go up. There are underlying metrics to these skills that add up.

As well, you ignored entirely the "predictive and repeatable", We don't see hitters strike out 30% of the time one year and then 15% of the time the next, yet we see hitters like Ian Happ go from a 122 wRC+ last year with RISP to a 91 wRC+ with RISP this year.

https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2024/11/23/24273174/the-mysteries-of-hitting-with-risp

This is a study that also proves it's not a repeatable statistic. Do you have a study to support your point of view?

So again, I ask the same two questions:
1. Define the skill 
2. Prove it's repeatable

Until these two things are defined, it's not a worthwhile aspect of the game to focus in on. The issue is that the Cubs aren't hitting. Hitting with RISP is a symptom of that issue but is not the issue.

[PeanutPunch33]

2 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

You do realize that sac flies don't count for RISP, right?

[Outshined_One]

1 minute ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

 

And when calculating batting average, sacrifice hits are...?

[PeanutPunch33]

1 minute ago, Jason Ross said:

No. That's an anecdote. What is the skill? You can't just say it's a skill. What is the skill?

As an example, I can define the skill of getting on base: some hitters have a better ability to to determine strikes and balls. This helps raise their ability to walk. Hitters who have better contact rates, also have an ability to get on base better. We can track these underlying skills through things like baseball savant. 

As well, you ignored entirely the "predictive and repeatable", We don't see hitters strike out 30% of the time one year and then 15% of the time the next, yet we see hitters like Ian Happ go from a 122 wRC+ last year with RISP to a 91 wRC+ with RISP this year.

https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2024/11/23/24273174/the-mysteries-of-hitting-with-risp

This is a study that also proves it's not a repeatable statistic.

So again, I ask the same two questions:
1. Define the skill 
2. Prove it's repeatable

Until these two things are defined, it's not a worthwhile aspect of the game to focus in on. The issue is that the Cubs aren't hitting. Hitting with RISP is a symptom of that issue but is not the issue.

You bring up good points but it's hard for me to understand why guys like Nico are so good in those spots and people like Swanson is not.  The skill is making contact, shortening your swing, having good baseball acumen.  I'd say even being unselfish is a skill in baseball.  Some guys like Javy always swung for the fences in those spots.  Other guys like Zobrist got it done due to his approach and bat-to-ball skills.  

[PeanutPunch33]

3 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

And when calculating batting average, sacrifice hits are...?

What about RBI groundouts?  Base hits in those spots.  Home runs in those spots.  It's not just about the sacrifice.

Edited June 17 by PeanutPunch33

[sneakypower]

it's not a matter of clutch, they just plain suck at that aspect of hitting

20th in MLB in AVG

18th in MLB in SLG

so drawing some walks and putting guys on base doesn't amount to all that much because you're just giving LOB opportunities to bad hitters, which is the fundamental complaint

team-wise they're good at walking and bad at hitting

Edited June 17 by sneakypower

[Jason Ross]

Just now, PeanutPunch33 said:

You bring up good points but it's hard for me to understand why guys like Nico are so good in those spots and people like Swanson is not.  The skill is making contact, shortening your swing, having good baseball acumen.  I'd say even being unselfish is a skill in baseball.  Some guys like Javy always swung for the fences in those spots.  Other guys like Zobrist got it done due to his approach and bat-to-ball skills.  

Javier Baez has better numbers over his career with runners in scoring position than without runners on base or with runners on and not in scoring position. I know, it feels like someone like Baez wouldn't; but it's probably another reason why we shouldn't use it. 

Swanson, as well, has better numbers with RISP over his career than any other game state. And has a 104 wRC+. It's true that Nico Hoerner has better RISP numbers, 116 wRC+ to Swanson's career 104 wRC+, but couldn't that just be because Nico Hoerner is a better hitter? Hoerner is a career 101 wRC+ hitter and Swanson is a 95 wRC+ hitter. 

I don't think hitters are magically better because someone is on second. When we see hitters doing well one year versus another, it's almost always down to "small sample size". Like, Hoerner has 326 PA's this year but 76 are with RISP. Many batting statistics aren't even stabilized at 76 PAs (stabilized in this just means they are large enough that dumb luck isn't affecting the numbers; certain stats require higher thresholds than other).

[PeanutPunch33]

1 minute ago, Jason Ross said:

Javier Baez has better numbers over his career with runners in scoring position than without runners on base or with runners on and not in scoring position. I know, it feels like someone like Baez wouldn't; but it's probably another reason why we shouldn't use it. 

Swanson, as well, has better numbers with RISP over his career than any other game state. And has a 104 wRC+. It's true that Nico Hoerner has better RISP numbers, 116 wRC+ to Swanson's career 104 wRC+, but couldn't that just be because Nico Hoerner is a better hitter? Hoerner is a career 101 wRC+ hitter and Swanson is a 95 wRC+ hitter. 

I don't think hitters are magically better because someone is on second. When we see hitters doing well one year versus another, it's almost always down to "small sample size". Like, Hoerner has 326 PA's this year but 76 are with RISP. Many batting statistics aren't even stabilized at 76 PAs (stabilized in this just means they are large enough that dumb luck isn't affecting the numbers; certain stats require higher thresholds than other).

Fair points.  So is your position that the Cubs don't need to add any more major pieces on offense?  I hate to pull the "eye test" card but I would disagree with that completely, even if I can't explain it away with numbers.  It seems like something is missing or even broken with this offense and it's been like that for a while.  

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

Fair points.  So is your position that the Cubs don't need to add any more major pieces on offense?  I hate to pull the "eye test" card but I would disagree with that completely, even if I can't explain it away with numbers.  It seems like something is missing or even broken with this offense and it's been like that for a while.  

I do not believe the Cubs need to add any major pieces to the offense right now, no. That isn't me saying the offense is great as is, but that the solution offensively is internal. Part of that is mental; I think the team is pressing (and I don't think fan sentiment and media is helping with that, but I'm not blaming anyone for being frustrated). I think the team has been the recipient of some bad luck. I think some players have been the recipient of bad play (Swanson particularly is bad right now). But on paper this is a good offensive team and the solution is for the good players to be good again.

The same cannot be said for the pitching. The issue there is that players are hurt and some of them aren't coming back. It was also the aspect of the team on paper entering the year that was projected to be worse. Your best hope internally is maybe Justin Steele comes back, but that's far from a guarantee. And you don't pick up any more ouchies.

The Cubs only have so many prospects to make a move in July and so much time. Opportunity cost is a real thing. So between the offense, which I believe can be fixed internally and the pitching, which I do not believe has any immediate internal fixes, you have to spend your resources on pitching.

The Cubs can re-evaluate the offense in the offseason.

[Geographyhater8888]

Eventually you’d think at least that the RISP problems will progress to the mean and the offense will score runs consistently again. It won’t be the first time it’s happened with this core. The pitching will suck, and these scoring droughts might bite them in the ass like in 2023 and 2024. These are all different solutions to fixing a team that isn’t good enough no matter how impractical adding a bat would be with a pitching staff that’s putrid.

 

Edited June 17 by Geographyhater8888

[mk49]

31 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

The Cubs were also not great against RISP in 2025.  It's not like this is some fluke event lol.  2 years in a row is cause for concern. 

The Cubs had the 4th highest wRC+ with RISP last year.

[Rcal10]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I do not believe the Cubs need to add any major pieces to the offense right now, no. That isn't me saying the offense is great as is, but that the solution offensively is internal. Part of that is mental; I think the team is pressing (and I don't think fan sentiment and media is helping with that, but I'm not blaming anyone for being frustrated). I think the team has been the recipient of some bad luck. I think some players have been the recipient of bad play (Swanson particularly is bad right now). But on paper this is a good offensive team and the solution is for the good players to be good again.

The same cannot be said for the pitching. The issue there is that players are hurt and some of them aren't coming back. It was also the aspect of the team on paper entering the year that was projected to be worse. Your best hope internally is maybe Justin Steele comes back, but that's far from a guarantee. And you don't pick up any more ouchies.

The Cubs only have so many prospects to make a move in July and so much time. Opportunity cost is a real thing. So between the offense, which I believe can be fixed internally and the pitching, which I do not believe has any immediate internal fixes, you have to spend your resources on pitching.

The Cubs can re-evaluate the offense in the offseason.

The voice of reason. That you for saying everything I try to say but much better than I say it. 

[PeanutPunch33]

10 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I do not believe the Cubs need to add any major pieces to the offense right now, no. That isn't me saying the offense is great as is, but that the solution offensively is internal. Part of that is mental; I think the team is pressing (and I don't think fan sentiment and media is helping with that, but I'm not blaming anyone for being frustrated). I think the team has been the recipient of some bad luck. I think some players have been the recipient of bad play (Swanson particularly is bad right now). But on paper this is a good offensive team and the solution is for the good players to be good again.

The same cannot be said for the pitching. The issue there is that players are hurt and some of them aren't coming back. It was also the aspect of the team on paper entering the year that was projected to be worse. Your best hope internally is maybe Justin Steele comes back, but that's far from a guarantee. And you don't pick up any more ouchies.

The Cubs only have so many prospects to make a move in July and so much time. Opportunity cost is a real thing. So between the offense, which I believe can be fixed internally and the pitching, which I do not believe has any immediate internal fixes, you have to spend your resources on pitching.

The Cubs can re-evaluate the offense in the offseason.

That's a sensible take, no doubt that they need more pitching in both the rotation and bullpen.  Would your opinion change if a guy like Yordan Alvarez or CJ Abrams become available?  This seems like a weird deadline where a couple of really good hitters could get moved.  I'd be really disappointed if the Cubs weren't in on a move like that, if there was any chance it could happen.  They can always buy more pitching in FA and they should have a healthy Steele back next year too

[PeanutPunch33]

4 minutes ago, mk49 said:

The Cubs had the 4th highest wRC+ with RISP last year.

Interesting.  I'm done talking now.  Lol. .😂  

But seriously, that 2nd half offense last year was brutal.  Thank god for PCA and Busch for at least making this lineup watchable.  

[Jason Ross]

13 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

That's a sensible take, no doubt that they need more pitching in both the rotation and bullpen.  Would your opinion change if a guy like Yordan Alvarez or CJ Abrams become available?  This seems like a weird deadline where a couple of really good hitters could get moved.  I'd be really disappointed if the Cubs weren't in on a move like that, if there was any chance it could happen.  They can always buy more pitching in FA and they should have a healthy Steele back next year too

No. I'll bring this back to a school setting, being a teacher and all. 

You're someone who scores really well in Math. You're not labeled gifted and talented but you usually score high B's and low A'. But you've got a C+ in Math class. Why? Combination of not trying hard enough, got a little behind and missed some time sick. 

You also have a a D in English. You're not a gifted writer. You struggle. In fact, you probably need a tutor. 

Would you spend your time with a Math tutor, even if it was the best Math tutor on the planet? Or would you expect your natural math ability, plus things just going your way will help you get back to where you should be (B+/A- area) plus an English tutor would get you the best combination of grades? There isn't enough time in the day for both, so you have to make a choice.

I think this is what the Cubs are facing. Yes, Yordan Alvarez is a great hitter, but how much better of an offense are the Cubs going to get? If the offense as a whole doesn't get going, adding on excellent hitter isn't going to fix it (has PCA's hot streak fixed it?). If the offense does get going, how much better are you getting offensively? But how much easier would it be for the Cubs to get a pretty good arm, or a few, and go from a bad pitching staff to a slightly better than average? 

The jump on pitching is both easier to make happen and likely has a bigger impact.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Cubs had the highest meatball swing% in MLB in 2024, the 5th highest in 2025, and have the 3rd lowest this year. That could be an easy place to find some runs you idiots (Cubs).

 

Over the last 30 days the league has taken the 4S (3rd fewest) and cutter (fewest) away from the Cubs. They've faced the 2nd most sinkers, 2nd most sliders, and 4th most curves. It's been an exceedingly triumphant campaign waged against Cubs hitters not named PCA or Busch

Edited June 17 by We Got The Whole 9

[PeanutPunch33]

2 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

No. I'll bring this back to a school setting, being a teacher and all. 

You're someone who scores really well in Math. You're not labeled gifted and talented but you usually score high B's and low A'. But you've got a C+ in Math class. Why? Combination of not trying hard enough, got a little behind and missed some time sick. 

You also have a a D in English. You're not a gifted writer. You struggle. In fact, you probably need a tutor. 

Would you spend your time with a Math tutor, even if it was the best Math tutor on the planet? Or would you expect your natural math ability, plus things just going your way will help you get back to where you should be (B+/A- area) plus an English tutor would get you the best combination of grades? There isn't enough time in the day for both, so you have to make a choice.

I think this is what the Cubs are facing. Yes, Yordan Alvarez is a great hitter, but how much better of an offense are the Cubs going to get? If the offense as a whole doesn't get going, adding on excellent hitter isn't going to fix it (has PCA's hot streak fixed it?). If the offense does get going, how much better are you getting offensively? But how much easier would it be for the Cubs to get a pretty good arm, or a few, and go from a bad pitching staff to a slightly better than average? 

The jump on pitching is both easier to make happen and likely has a bigger impact.

If the goal is to make the playoffs this year by any means necessary I agree with you.  But if the goal is to create a contending window for the next 5 years, and a real shot to win a WS, a half season of Peralta doesn’t do it.  Adding one of the best hitters in baseball would.  

That’s why I think the Cubs need to be open minded on how to improve this ball club.  Unless there’s a pitcher with multiple years of control somewhere that they could turn into Jake Arrieta or Cade Horton.  I just don’t see it.  

Edited June 17 by PeanutPunch33

[Jason Ross]

21 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

If the goal is to make the playoffs this year by any means necessary I agree with you.  But if the goal is to create a contending window for the next 5 years, and a real shot to win a WS, a half season of Peralta doesn’t do it.  Adding one of the best hitters in baseball would.  

That’s why I think the Cubs need to be open minded on how to improve this ball club.  Unless there’s a pitcher with multiple years of control somewhere that they could turn into Jake Arrieta or Cade Horton.  I just don’t see it.  

They should be open minded, but we are playing a very dangerous game of "hypotheticals" here. There is no report suggesting the Astros as entertaining Yordan Alvarez trades right now outside of speculation. The Astros have shot it down. He's signed and isn't an upcoming FA. The Nationals also have not signaled any reason to trade Abrams. Nor do we have any idea if the Cubs have enough to make that happen (If probably argue they don't unless you're okay moving Hartshorn and the Astros want a Hartshorn). 

Here's the reality; the Cubs are far better positioned to trade for a pitcher. They need a pitcher more. Both now and next year. What prospects do they have who will be MLB ready next year? Most of them are hitters. Wiggins is about the only exception pitching wise and he's spent the entire year hurt so far. 

I think the Cubs trading for a Reid Detmers is entirely more likely than them trading for Yordan Alvarez. Detmers is even rumored to be available. 

[Rcal10]

25 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

If the goal is to make the playoffs this year by any means necessary I agree with you.  But if the goal is to create a contending window for the next 5 years, and a real shot to win a WS, a half season of Peralta doesn’t do it.  Adding one of the best hitters in baseball would.  

That’s why I think the Cubs need to be open minded on how to improve this ball club.  Unless there’s a pitcher with multiple years of control somewhere that they could turn into Jake Arrieta or Cade Horton.  I just don’t see it.  

Why are you comparing picking up a rental pitcher for a hitter with several years after this one? If you are going to use Alvarez as your hitter you should use Hunter Brown as the pitcher. Or, better yet Skenes. In that scenario give me the pitcher. That is the truer comparison. 
Also, you have mentioned Alvarez and Abrams in the last. Where has it been seen that these guys are even available. Why would the Nationals trade Abrams? They are in the WC race. Why are the Astros trading Alvarez? And if they are, why not Brown too? Given the choice of adding a great bat or a great arm and each with the same control time, the pitcher would help more now and later. 

Edited June 17 by Rcal10

[731.4life]

8 hours ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

It can both be true that the Cubs have respectable hitters in their lineup, but also in need of a major revamp on offense.  These guys have redundant skillsets.  Too many guys that try to do the same things. 

This is like a Moneyball lineup where every guy (outside of 1-2) is just trying to get on base.  They need more dudes that can put the ball over the fence or in the gaps.  Even if Nico plays like Nico again and Bregman plays like Bregman again, I don't think it solves the underlying issue.  

As much as I love PCA, a 24 year old shouldn't be the best hitter on the team.  If you are the Royals, sure.  But not when your team can outspend basically every other team except 2 or 3.  

This is the problem with the Cubs, and this is why they have been called out by national media members like Ken Rosenthal and others.

A few years ago, people were debating between either Pete Alonso or Michael Busch. The nerdy people loved Busch because of his defensive ability over Alonso, and more nerdy stats.  Well, last year Busch had a career year of 34 home runs with 90 RBI's. Alonso just did his normal thing hitting 38 homers, driving in 120+, and hitting .272. So, Busch's career year still isn't as good as Pete Alonso on the back of the baseball card. And Pete Alonso played 162 last year.

The Cubs have the same issue. Not saying Yordan Alvarez is available. But if the Cubs trade for him, you definitely have the best hitter in the NL Central. You slot him in the 3rd/4th slot in the lineup every night and leave him alone. 

Problem with the Cubs is that they have gone too analytical and too nerdy. Enough with the nerdy stats, they need playmakers, and they don't have it on pitching, and hitting. They just don't. And the fans are the ones that are being treated with a disservice because this team is robbing the fans.

They have a tough weekend homestead with Toronto coming to town, and a tough road trip to the Mets and Brewers. Only good thing is Misiorowski doesn't look like he'll pitch against Chicago next weekend.