Cubs Pre-Offseason Mega Thread

[Bertz]

15 hours ago, Nolo said:

Interesting. I still think Shota and Boyd need to go, and I think Michael King is going to stay in San Diego. The preference out of this group is Peralta for the Cubs rotation.

Peralta, Steele, Holmes, Peterson, Cabrera isn’t bad 

Honestly I think that rotation is probably quite good!  I'm sure people would complain about the lack of a fire breathing ace but I suspect that'd be a top 10 rotation.

My point so much as I had one is that Peralta and King aren't performing appreciably better than the guys we're letting walk.  And for Peralta specifically despite the sparkling ERA the Rays haven't fixed a damn thing.

This SP market is really deep, which is great news for a team that needs to add 3 SPs.  On the flipside the top tier after Skubal is really weak.  Decent chance Trevor Rogers is the only other SP to get a $100M+ deal.

So I totally understand wanting to take a swing on a Peralta or a King turning the clock back to 2024.  I'm just wary that after these playoffs they're going to be priced as if that work has already been all or at least mostly accomplished rather than the buy low guys they are in reality.

[mul21]

10 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Honestly I think that rotation is probably quite good!  I'm sure people would complain about the lack of a fire breathing ace but I suspect that'd be a top 10 rotation.

My point so much as I had one is that Peralta and King aren't performing appreciably better than the guys we're letting walk.  And for Peralta specifically despite the sparkling ERA the Rays haven't fixed a damn thing.

This SP market is really deep, which is great news for a team that needs to add 3 SPs.  On the flipside the top tier after Skubal is really weak.  Decent chance Trevor Rogers is the only other SP to get a $100M+ deal.

So I totally understand wanting to take a swing on a Peralta or a King turning the clock back to 2024.  I'm just wary that after these playoffs they're going to be priced as if that work has already been all or at least mostly accomplished rather than the buy low guys they are in reality.

I know you've looked at the underlying stuff with Peralta.  Was it just less walks and better luck doing the heavy lifting?

[Jason Ross]

31 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

On a very hypothetical basis, given that the next time the Cubs successfully rehabilitate a pitcher coming off a serious injury in a timely manner will be the first time I can remember.....what kind of value does Horton have?

Like, I'm aware this would be 'selling low'. but this is also an offense built to win in 2027, and there are at least a few teams out there that aren't. 

This feels like a super narrow landing strip to make happen. You'd need a team who has essentially punted 2027 this winter (as anything Horton gives you is going to be extra next year) and has a player that is controlled enough that the Cubs are willing to trade, easily, the best chance at a TORP in the entire organization (or for the organization to be so dissuaded by Horton's TJS that they just try to pull the rug on him before anyone else notices). And that this said controlled player is either already a good SP or a good COF. 

I'd hesitate to say "impossible" but this feels near it. Just don't think you'll find the perfect storm. 

[Rcal10]

11 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Honestly I think that rotation is probably quite good!  I'm sure people would complain about the lack of a fire breathing ace but I suspect that'd be a top 10 rotation.

My point so much as I had one is that Peralta and King aren't performing appreciably better than the guys we're letting walk.  And for Peralta specifically despite the sparkling ERA the Rays haven't fixed a damn thing.

This SP market is really deep, which is great news for a team that needs to add 3 SPs.  On the flipside the top tier after Skubal is really weak.  Decent chance Trevor Rogers is the only other SP to get a $100M+ deal.

So I totally understand wanting to take a swing on a Peralta or a King turning the clock back to 2024.  I'm just wary that after these playoffs they're going to be priced as if that work has already been all or at least mostly accomplished rather than the buy low guys they are in reality.

Makes sense. But the bottom line is unless the Cubs get Skubal, whoever they do get for a front of the rotation starter via FA they will be banking on them turning back the clock to 2024. Or they will sign Rogers(and lose two draft picks) or Taima. I just don’t see a sure fire swing at a front end starter in this class, except for Skubal. It is a very solid group as a whole and they can come away with 3 starters, but maybe none with a front of the rotation past or potential. Would something like Holmes, Peterson and Gray be considered a successful off season? 🤷

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Makes sense. But the bottom line is unless the Cubs get Skubal, whoever they do get for a front of the rotation starter via FA they will be banking on them turning back the clock to 2024. Or they will sign Rogers(and lose two draft picks) or Taima. I just don’t see a sure fire swing at a front end starter in this class, except for Skubal. It is a very solid group as a whole and they can come away with 3 starters, but maybe none with a front of the rotation past or potential. Would something like Holmes, Peterson and Gray be considered a successful off season? 🤷

I think it depends on what else happens. Like, I don't think the 2027 rotation is any better than the 2026 rotation left off at that point. You're still losing Shota and Boyd and you're only going from Gausman to Gray. And I think it's a pretty ho-hum "fine" rotation. Those three is a good middle-rotation, for example. Then you have a combination of "what if's" in Steele, Cabrera and Brown; all of whom might have the oompf to lead that rotation but none of whom are guarantees. You can find a very good reason to think any of those three are not going to be helpful in 2027. I'd hesitate to count on any of them to be good, with the understanding they all could be.

But if the rotation isn't any better than the Guasman/Holmes/Pederson/Shota/Boyd rotation we just had then the offense has to be just as good. And I'd really wonder how they handle Happ and Suzuki's loss in that situation because that's a real downgrade.

[Bertz]

12 minutes ago, mul21 said:

I know you've looked at the underlying stuff with Peralta.  Was it just less walks and better luck doing the heavy lifting?

Fewer dongs, and that's despite more barrels so clearly luck rather than skill.  He also got much better sequencing luck.  He did start throwing harder, so maybe over a longer time horizon that would translate into things that matter like whiffs or groundballs, but he actually pitched a little worse for the Rays than the Mets IMO.

It's honestly not that different than David Peterson for us.  Peterson pitched a little bit better for us than the Mets, but got way better sequencing luck and of course enjoyed our insane defense.

[Bertz]

14 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Makes sense. But the bottom line is unless the Cubs get Skubal, whoever they do get for a front of the rotation starter via FA they will be banking on them turning back the clock to 2024. Or they will sign Rogers(and lose two draft picks) or Taima. I just don’t see a sure fire swing at a front end starter in this class, except for Skubal. It is a very solid group as a whole and they can come away with 3 starters, but maybe none with a front of the rotation past or potential. Would something like Holmes, Peterson and Gray be considered a successful off season? 🤷

I think Gausman, Gray, and Holmes, are still really good pitchers.  They're old enough you worry about them falling off the table and don't want to give them a ton of years, but they're really good right now.  And personally I'd rather bet on them staying good than someone like King going back to being good, especially since the latter will probably cost more money.

It sucks that there's not a Max Fried or Dylan Cease in this market, but I'm generally comfortable with depth over top end talent on the pitching staff.  Like my Plan A at the moment would be Taira, Gausman, and Tyler Mahle.  And eyeballing Roster Resource there are about 12 guys on the market who, assuming the price was reasonable, I'd be happy to give a rotation spot to.  Plus another half dozen guys like Aaron Civale I'd be happy to give a swing man job to.

[mul21]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

I think Gausman, Gray, and Holmes, are still really good pitchers.  They're old enough you worry about them falling off the table and don't want to give them a ton of years, but they're really good right now.  And personally I'd rather bet on them staying good than someone like King going back to being good, especially since the latter will probably cost more money.

It sucks that there's not a Max Fried or Dylan Cease in this market, but I'm generally comfortable with depth over top end talent on the pitching staff.  Like my Plan A at the moment would be Taira, Gausman, and Tyler Mahle.  And eyeballing Roster Resource there are about 12 guys on the market who, assuming the price was reasonable, I'd be happy to give a rotation spot to.  Plus another half dozen guys like Aaron Civale I'd be happy to give a swing man job to.

I'm concerned about how effective Gausman will be going forward.  It felt like he was good every other start with the Cubs and wasn't great before coming over either.  I'd be more inclined to go with Holmes over him.

[Bertz]

36 minutes ago, mul21 said:

I'm concerned about how effective Gausman will be going forward.  It felt like he was good every other start with the Cubs and wasn't great before coming over either.  I'd be more inclined to go with Holmes over him.

I'm not especially worried.  He gave up a ton of dongs but his barrel rate was exactly league average at 7.7%.  It's a combo of small sample noise and Wrigley playing so hitter friendly in '26.

He'll be 36 next year so he might turn bad, but *right now* he's really good still.

[Gjfificifjdej]

9 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I think it depends on what else happens. Like, I don't think the 2027 rotation is any better than the 2026 rotation left off at that point. You're still losing Shota and Boyd and you're only going from Gausman to Gray. And I think it's a pretty ho-hum "fine" rotation. Those three is a good middle-rotation, for example. Then you have a combination of "what if's" in Steele, Cabrera and Brown; all of whom might have the oompf to lead that rotation but none of whom are guarantees. You can find a very good reason to think any of those three are not going to be helpful in 2027. I'd hesitate to count on any of them to be good, with the understanding they all could be.

But if the rotation isn't any better than the Guasman/Holmes/Pederson/Shota/Boyd rotation we just had then the offense has to be just as good. And I'd really wonder how they handle Happ and Suzuki's loss in that situation because that's a real downgrade.

I would do unspeakable things to get a “ho hum fine” rotation out of the 2027 Cubs after the cacophony of awful we were subjected to this year. 

[Jason Ross]

2 hours ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

I would do unspeakable things to get a “ho hum fine” rotation out of the 2027 Cubs after the cacophony of awful we were subjected to this year. 

The Cubs had a ho-hum rotation from August to September. It was 17th in ERA, 12th in xFIP. 

It was fine. I'd be fine entering the 2027 season with a ho-hum rotation like that as long as it came coupled with the best offense in baseball. The issue is that the Cubs will struggle to replace Suzuki and Happ and I think we should all brace for offensive regression. So I think ultimately either the Cubs need to find a way to equal their production and have a "fine" rotation or have a rotation that clears up the slack the offense is going to lose.

[Hunter]

10 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs had a ho-hum rotation from August to September. It was 17th in ERA, 12th in xFIP. 

It was fine. I'd be fine entering the 2027 season with a ho-hum rotation like that as long as it came coupled with the best offense in baseball. The issue is that the Cubs will struggle to replace Suzuki and Happ and I think we should all brace for offensive regression. So I think ultimately either the Cubs need to find a way to equal their production and have a "fine" rotation or have a rotation that clears up the slack the offense is going to lose.

As streaky as the offense is already, we will end up with a bunch of 2-0 or 3-1 losses.

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, Hunter said:

As streaky as the offense is already, we will end up with a bunch of 2-0 or 3-1 losses.

The "offense is streaky" thing is a minsomer. There is a correlation between teams who score the most runs and teams who run "streaky" offenses. Why? It's a lot easier to be "streaky" when you have the ability to score 5+ every day, the outburst ability to put up 10+ but it's also baseball and sometimes you don't have it that day. If your offense sucks, yeah, you're not streaky; you just consistently suck. 

The Brewers had the second streakiest offense last year. Fun fact.

[Geographyhater8888]

5 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The "offense is streaky" thing is a minsomer. There is a correlation between teams who score the most runs and teams who run "streaky" offenses. Why? It's a lot easier to be "streaky" when you have the ability to score 5+ every day, the outburst ability to put up 10+ but it's also baseball and sometimes you don't have it that day. If your offense sucks, yeah, you're not streaky; you just consistently suck. 

The Brewers had the second streakiest offense last year. Fun fact.

The pitching staff had to have been top 5 in consistency and that’s being conservative with only 9 games of allowing 10+ runs and 6 wheee they posted a shutout, in contrast to 21 and 14 for the offense.

[Bertz]

11 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs had a ho-hum rotation from August to September. It was 17th in ERA, 12th in xFIP. 

It was fine. I'd be fine entering the 2027 season with a ho-hum rotation like that as long as it came coupled with the best offense in baseball. The issue is that the Cubs will struggle to replace Suzuki and Happ and I think we should all brace for offensive regression. So I think ultimately either the Cubs need to find a way to equal their production and have a "fine" rotation or have a rotation that clears up the slack the offense is going to lose.

With the number of bodies heading out the door I think substantially improving on last year's team is tough to do this offseason.  But "Offense loses about 10 WAR and the Pitching gains about 10 WAR" feels like a pretty easy outcome.

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, Bertz said:

With the number of bodies heading out the door I think substantially improving on last year's team is tough to do this offseason.  But "Offense loses about 10 WAR and the Pitching gains about 10 WAR" feels like a pretty easy outcome.

If I felt good about Steele and Brown coming back from injuries and pitching well, and Cabrera getting straightened out I would feel much better about your scenerio. I do agree that is what the team will be working towards. But I don’t see this outcome as “pretty easy”. 

[Jason Ross]

25 minutes ago, Bertz said:

With the number of bodies heading out the door I think substantially improving on last year's team is tough to do this offseason.  But "Offense loses about 10 WAR and the Pitching gains about 10 WAR" feels like a pretty easy outcome.

This is probably true. But I'll also say this: I don't think that's good enough if that's the case (not saying you are or aren't in agreement). And I say that as someone who has been pretty positive during the Jed Hoyer experience; I haven't really called for his head like many and have given him what I think is really a decent amount of rope to get out of the Covid-hole, build a roster and the like. But we'll be headed into the seventh year this season, and another ~90 win team like we have seen feels a bit like a disappointment at this stage. 

I recognize the difficulty of the offseason. There's a lot of players coming off the books and doing more than that is a tall task (and that might be underselling it) But it isn't as if this was handed to Hoyer; it is his doing. This is his outcome. And I am at a point with the organization where I do think they need to kick this thing into another gear before the next excuse becomes "Swanson and Bregman are hitting their mid-30's" or something else. Maybe a really strong developmental year can offset another ~90 win/WC round team, but I do think we're getting to "prove to me you can do more" territory in some fashion. 

If Hoyer can't, then we might be at "fresh eyes" to solve the situation. And I'm not trying to say that lightly, or flippantly, but at some point I think "you gotta' do more" and back-to-back ~90 win seasons is hitting a point where I want to see the team be more than that. 

So really, my expectation is that despite the degree of difficulty, the organization finds a way to not tread water, but find a next gear in some fashion. And ~10 WAR in and ~10 WAR out, with next offseason looking like another tricky one (this time with almost no major money coming off the books) probably won't do it for me on the surface.

[Stratos]

On 10/26/2026 at 5:51 AM, Jason Ross said:

No they don't. FIP and xFIP literally count things a pitcher can control on their own; the result of the hitter.

I'm aware of how these stats are calculated.  My point was just that if we use these stats to evaluate pitchers (which we all do) we need to be aware of their limitations.

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I'm aware of how these stats are calculated.  My point was just that if we use these stats to evaluate pitchers (which we all do) we need to be aware of their limitations.

Then you should also understand that xFIP, FIP and fWAR wouldn't be influenced by a LHP holding a runner on or not and would not underrate them. They exist solely to take that kind of thing out of the equation. It's not benefiting RHP or undervaluing LHP. It just straight up doesn't exist to them.

It's like saying home runs underrate hitters who walk a lot. "HR's" as a statistic are not concerned with walks or not. xFIP, FIP and by extension, fWAR, are not concerned with that. 

xERA might but once we begin opening up a can of worms, there's far more into it than a very small, very limited aspect of the game, too.  Sure, xERA might undervalue it, and I think we should point those things out, but it's also probably not enough to throw the bathwater out of with the baby, and why we have things like xFIP to cross-check (which, again, are not influenced by that).

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

This is probably true. But I'll also say this: I don't think that's good enough if that's the case (not saying you are or aren't in agreement). And I say that as someone who has been pretty positive during the Jed Hoyer experience; I haven't really called for his head like many and have given him what I think is really a decent amount of rope to get out of the Covid-hole, build a roster and the like. But we'll be headed into the seventh year this season, and another ~90 win team like we have seen feels a bit like a disappointment at this stage. 

I recognize the difficulty of the offseason. There's a lot of players coming off the books and doing more than that is a tall task (and that might be underselling it) But it isn't as if this was handed to Hoyer; it is his doing. This is his outcome. And I am at a point with the organization where I do think they need to kick this thing into another gear before the next excuse becomes "Swanson and Bregman are hitting their mid-30's" or something else. Maybe a really strong developmental year can offset another ~90 win/WC round team, but I do think we're getting to "prove to me you can do more" territory in some fashion. 

If Hoyer can't, then we might be at "fresh eyes" to solve the situation. And I'm not trying to say that lightly, or flippantly, but at some point I think "you gotta' do more" and back-to-back ~90 win seasons is hitting a point where I want to see the team be more than that. 

So really, my expectation is that despite the degree of difficulty, the organization finds a way to not tread water, but find a next gear in some fashion. And ~10 WAR in and ~10 WAR out, with next offseason looking like another tricky one (this time with almost no major money coming off the books) probably won't do it for me on the surface.

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm generally comfortable with treading water given:

- We'd be treading at ~5th best team in the league

- We tread while infusing the lineup with some youth as opposed to treading with a lineup full of 33 year olds

To your point about Swanson and Bregman getting old, the best way to head that off is not making the lineup needlessly old elsewhere.   Not having the whole lineup be in their mid 30s insulates you from a certain amount of downside risk. and taking it a step further having a healthy chunk of your lineup being mid 20's gives you an opportunity for a breakouts to mitigate the inevitable breakdowns.

Like next offseason doesn't look tricky at all to me?  You have to replace Justin Steele, a couple of relievers, and any one-year deals you sign this winter.  There will of course be things that are unforeseen now that crop up in the next twelve months that need fixing, but that's only especially tricky to navigate if

A) This winter you sign a bunch of bad contracts

B) You strip mine the org's young talent

C) You get an especially raw deal from the baseball gods

A and B are a matter if discipline and C is something where if you get hammered the incrementality of making this current roster stronger would be essentially pissing in the wind.

[squally1313]

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Then you should also understand that xFIP, FIP and fWAR wouldn't be influenced by a LHP holding a runner on or not and would not underrate them. They exist solely to take that kind of thing out of the equation. It's not benefiting RHP or undervaluing LHP. It just straight up doesn't exist to them.

It's like saying home runs underrate hitters who walk a lot. "HR's" as a statistic are not concerned with walks or not. xFIP, FIP and by extension, fWAR, are not concerned with that. 

xERA might but once we begin opening up a can of worms, there's far more into it than a very small, very limited aspect of the game, too.  Sure, xERA might undervalue it, and I think we should point those things out, but it's also probably not enough to throw the bathwater out of with the baby, and why we have things like xFIP to cross-check (which, again, are not influenced by that).

This is semantics at this point, but I think you're not thinking about this right. Stratos is, I believe, saying that people generally use FIP or fWAR or whatever as a rough metric of the quality of a pitcher in terms of their ability to help their teams win, and the fact that those metrics don't consider something like the ability to hold runners would mean that the metric is an incomplete way to value a pitcher. 

Like, if you and I were pitchers and struck out the same amount of hitters, walked the same amount, gave up the same quality of contact, all the things that go into FIP, but then my stretch throwing motion was a second slower to the plate, the metric would have us as the same pitcher, but you would be better at helping your team win games.

At least, that's how I'm reading it. 

[Jason Ross]

10 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

This is semantics at this point, but I think you're not thinking about this right. Stratos is, I believe, saying that people generally use FIP or fWAR or whatever as a rough metric of the quality of a pitcher in terms of their ability to help their teams win, and the fact that those metrics don't consider something like the ability to hold runners would mean that the metric is an incomplete way to value a pitcher. 

Like, if you and I were pitchers and struck out the same amount of hitters, walked the same amount, gave up the same quality of contact, all the things that go into FIP, but then my stretch throwing motion was a second slower to the plate, the metric would have us as the same pitcher, but you would be better at helping your team win games.

At least, that's how I'm reading it. 

I do understand that. I just think we're going about it wrong to blame FIP. FIP is concerned with the batter-hitter interaction and only that. It's sole existence is that "what happens after is immaterial". 

If you want to say "I think what happens next matters" that's cool. But I don't think that FIP (or by way anything using it as a foundation) undervalues LHP for holding runners on, because it doesn't overvalue RHP for not, because FIP doesn't care foundationally about runners.

It feels to me blaming the wrong tool. As if to say "the hammer undervalues screws when it comes to building a house". A hammer is there for nails. To a hammer, screws are immaterial. Yeah, screws are important too, I'm sure (IDK, I can't build a bookshelf) but it's also not the hammer's fault. Kind of like FIP isn't really concerned about runners on base. And why we have different tools that might help with that. To me, it just feels weird to say something  that I think probably has some truth to it "LHP probably should get some benefit statistically for holding on runners" and then to point the finger at FIP. 

[Jason Ross]

25 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm generally comfortable with treading water given:

- We'd be treading at ~5th best team in the league

- We tread while infusing the lineup with some youth as opposed to treading with a lineup full of 33 year olds

To your point about Swanson and Bregman getting old, the best way to head that off is not making the lineup needlessly old elsewhere.   Not having the whole lineup be in their mid 30s insulates you from a certain amount of downside risk. and taking it a step further having a healthy chunk of your lineup being mid 20's gives you an opportunity for a breakouts to mitigate the inevitable breakdowns.

Like next offseason doesn't look tricky at all to me?  You have to replace Justin Steele, a couple of relievers, and any one-year deals you sign this winter.  There will of course be things that are unforeseen now that crop up in the next twelve months that need fixing, but that's only especially tricky to navigate if

A) This winter you sign a bunch of bad contracts

B) You strip mine the org's young talent

C) You get an especially raw deal from the baseball gods

A and B are a matter if discipline and C is something where if you get hammered the incrementality of making this current roster stronger would be essentially pissing in the wind.

I think next offseason is a tricky one because as of now, there is no slated money coming off the book of significance. You'll fine some "pocket change" perhaps; a few one year deals, and things like maybe Steele (if he's tendered - I don't think it's a lock) or Rea (I don't know if he's picked up). Beyond that, I don't think the Cubs are going hog-wild with one-year deals this year. So if you spend to the LT this season, you're probably not looking at some massive windfall of cash to spend next offseason when you factor in arbitration increases and the like. Small chance the CBA impacts this, but for now, I'll just work with the current structure.

If you do make the bulk of your offseason Holmes, Gray and Pederson, it's probable you need to go at least 1+1 on Pederson (maybe two). Sonny Gray is probably a two-year deal to get him in (as is Kevin Gausman as I kind of have them both in the same bucket). 

So then you're in a spot where Bregman and Swanson are older. You probably need some of the money to replace what will come off and it's once again a tricky place to really do more than tread water again. The Cubs are getting to a place where I think it's going to be come harder to "take the next step" as their players age and the money isn't coming off. At that point you're really banking hard that the developmental group is the path forward and it needs to happen fast. 

More or less, I think the boring offseason this year a red herring. It'll probably put out another 90 win team. I won't hate the roster. But I also think it begins to put the Cubs into a pretty sticky situation of "where are the gains coming from?" and "are we just running it back?"

I really would like to see the team get quite creative this offseason. I'm not sure how right now, or what that looks like. It threads a really gnarly needle but the more I look at where the Cubs are as an organization, I do think they're kind of at a crossroads where they're trending more like the Phillies of recent years where I don't know where that team goes right now and how it grows. And I'd like to avoid that fate; and I think the way to get there is creativity and foresight. 

[squally1313]

6 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I do understand that. I just think we're going about it wrong to blame FIP. FIP is concerned with the batter-hitter interaction and only that. It's sole existence is that "what happens after is immaterial". 

If you want to say "I think what happens next matters" that's cool. But I don't think that FIP (or by way anything using it as a foundation) undervalues LHP for holding runners on, because it doesn't overvalue RHP for not, because FIP doesn't care foundationally about runners.

It feels to me blaming the wrong tool. As if to say "the hammer undervalues screws when it comes to building a house". A hammer is there for nails. To a hammer, screws are immaterial. Yeah, screws are important too, I'm sure (IDK, I can't build a bookshelf) but it's also not the hammer's fault. Kind of like FIP isn't really concerned about runners on base. And why we have different tools that might help with that. To me, it just feels weird to say something  that I think probably has some truth to it "LHP probably should get some benefit statistically for holding on runners" and then to point the finger at FIP. 

Eh. I get your point. I wouldn't say he was 'blaming' FIP, I think he was pointing to the concept of people using FIP (or fWAR, largely based on FIP or at least, to my knowledge, not based on runner holding ability) as a proxy for 'pitchers with better FIPs/fWARs are better pitchers'. If I'm going to compare pitchers, I'm going to start with those metrics. But I think his general point was offensive fWAR theoretically tries to include every aspect of an offensive player's contributions to a game, and he's pointing out a part of a pitcher's skill set that seemingly isn't picked up anywhere. 

The original comment was 'xFIP (and other metrics) undervalue the vast majority of LHP'. You could certainly argue on the magnitude/importance/evidence of LHPs being better at holding runners than RHP, which I think you did down lower in your first response. I'd say his first statement was definitely oversimplifying. But I also think all he was saying was that FIP =/= 'value', and then claiming that a certain intrinsic factor not included in FIP tended to favor LHPs over RHPs. Debatable on the merits, but I was fine with the concept of pointing out parts of a skill set that aren't included in the metrics generally used to approximate 'value'

[Jason Ross]

30 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Eh. I get your point. I wouldn't say he was 'blaming' FIP, I think he was pointing to the concept of people using FIP (or fWAR, largely based on FIP or at least, to my knowledge, not based on runner holding ability) as a proxy for 'pitchers with better FIPs/fWARs are better pitchers'. If I'm going to compare pitchers, I'm going to start with those metrics. But I think his general point was offensive fWAR theoretically tries to include every aspect of an offensive player's contributions to a game, and he's pointing out a part of a pitcher's skill set that seemingly isn't picked up anywhere. 

The original comment was 'xFIP (and other metrics) undervalue the vast majority of LHP'. You could certainly argue on the magnitude/importance/evidence of LHPs being better at holding runners than RHP, which I think you did down lower in your first response. I'd say his first statement was definitely oversimplifying. But I also think all he was saying was that FIP =/= 'value', and then claiming that a certain intrinsic factor not included in FIP tended to favor LHPs over RHPs. Debatable on the merits, but I was fine with the concept of pointing out parts of a skill set that aren't included in the metrics generally used to approximate 'value'

I think that's generally fine. I do think we're kind of at a point where we're assigning a lot of subcontext to someone else that I'm not entirely sure was there. Maybe it was, but it feels like we're jumping the shark a bit as well.

More or less, I think my issue was the tacking on of xFIP, FIP and fWAR (though maybe you can round-about say it should maybe take that into account, but that's a can of worms). The general concept of "we undervalue soft skills of a LHP" is an interesting one on it's own merit. Tacking on a statistic that doesn't really care about anyone on base convolutes the argument IMO. Instead of talking about LHP and what they do well, we begin picking apart FIP's general concepts and leads us to a weird place that I'm not sure was the original point at all.