Jason Ross

The comparison is not of who he's replacing, but the level of value he's currently showing. I am not sure that the team needs another Jameson Taillon, but something better. The contract here becomes interesting. Does the control increase the price? Or does it decrease the price? If the Cubs can find something in the profile they like and can add chase, whiff and ultimately K%, then there is likely a reason to be a fan. I'm not 100% sure thats the case here, as on a quick profile glance, there isn't a very specific or obvious candidate for that. Not saying there isn't, either.

I'm fairly luke warm on Keller. He's done a few interesting things under the hood this year which has made his location better, but his K% has really dropped. Stuff+ isn't super-big on his pitch shapes, not is BP's models. It's cool he's controlled, but I'd guess his price becomes prohibitive based on his quality. Is Keller any better, than say, Jameson Taillon? Probably not significantly, as Keller's xFIP of 3.92 is in shouting distance of Taillon's 4.19. Is that worth the cost of admission?

48 hours ago the Cubs had the best record in the NL just a few games before the half way point. I get that the Cardinals are our biggest rival, but we don't need to go off the deep end because we lost two games. Reality is the pitching cannot give up this many home runs; it will even out. They still need help, but they arent going to serve up HR derby balls for much longer either. A good thing to remember is that when the Cubs are in a bad stretch, it's rarely as bad as it feels. They will come out of this.

I think Ben Brown hits an interesting blind spot on some advanced data; he gets good whiff, good chase, doesn't "walk" a ton but gives up a ton of hard contact that stays in the ballpark. He's rocking bottom barrel hard hit, exit velocity and barrel rates. He's also got a pretty high BABIP against, one I don't feel is particularly "luck" based. Ben Brown has a tendency to just throw fastballs when he's behind in the count. And he leaves them in good places. Compare how Brown throws the zone when behind versus, say, Cade Horton. Brown is on the left and Horton is on the right. Horton, when he's behind, goes away from the zone far more often. He throws his slider down and out, and he's just not afraid to give up a ball. Ben Brown throws in a hittable zone and once he's down, it's almost all fastballs. Cade uses his other offerings more in the count when he's behind. You can see the approach difference in both. The guy on the right feels confident that he can throw strikes later in the count. The guy on the left feels like needs to "steal a strike" to get back to the knuckle curve. And as he tries to steal a strike, opposing hitters can sit fastball, hit the ball hard. For Brown lots of this lands in play for hits. But since xFIP ignores hits in play, it doesn't calculate this.

I think he'd fit young, but he mentioned a "good, young veteran" and I just don't know if he's pitched enough to earn that moniker. Merrill Kelly would hit the good and the veteran, but not the young. It's hard to make what of what from that as we don't usually attribute "young" and "veteran" in the same player...usually one or the other. We'll see if anything happens or goes down. Wonder why it isn't going to happen. Is it because Shota is for sure a good to go? Did the team have a good last 10 games (Like, say, the Tampa Bay Rays and Drew Rassmussen?) and don't want to sell so much? Did the Cubs decide to aim higher? Do they like Cleveland or KC more? Interesting stuff.

I wouldn't advocate him starting with the Cubs. But as a reminder, the Cubs start Chase Strumpf at 3b in Iowa many days and routinely start Darius Hill or a similar ilk at DH. The Cubs could carve out a role for him in Iowa if they look at the tape/scouting and feel like they have a plan to rehab him. I'm not over the moon on the idea, but its a low risk move if they made it. And could give the team a switch hitting 1b/3b option if they get him back to something resembling to what he was. And if not, an easy release candidate!

Anecdotes. Neither OPS+ nor wRC+ deals in such a small sample size well. These are season-long statistics. Even at a game level, when we're boring down on what is a single game's worth of chances, you'll get funny things. Bad players have good games. Good players have bad games. wRC+ and OPS+ strive to peer through the anecdotal game-by-game outcomes and tell you what they're like on the overall. There is a concept in statistics in which is considered "stabilization". Essentially, "at what point is this data set beyond just pure, dumb, random luck?". Each statistic requires a different burden of proof, so there's no magic bullet, but every data point is well above the four-plate-appearance level. Most (beyond just wRC+ and OPS+, think like hard hit rate, barrel rate, pull rate, k-rate...) need at least 50 PA's of outcomes and there are some that require even more to really paint an accurate picture. Prior to that, they're anecdotal and not really important. It's cool to go 3-4, and have a double, but in a one-game sample size, even bad MLB players do that sometimes. So we need more data so that one good game from, like, Leodys Tavares isn't skewing the data. We have more than enough data to know he's a bad hitter, and that he's not magically a .750 guy now. Scoring runs, however, in general, is not something we want to attribute to a single player and all current analytics ignore this. I had mentioned "noise" before, and these are "noise" data, they create static because they add a second player into the mix. If I hit a ground ball to 2b and a runner scores from 3b, for example, all I did was hit a ground ball; that's bad. That there was someone on third base...I didn't do that, someone else did. A common counter argument to this is "situational hitting", and, yeah, I guess, but if we're being honest with ourselves, "situational hitting" still creates and out, limits more runs scoring later, and the batter is still trying not to make an out in almost all scenarios. It's also anecdotal and not a relevant sample size, so it's something we can usually ignore. The outcome of the PA by the batter (weak ground ball) is more predictive than "but yeah, he got the run home!" Similarly, if I score from 3b, cool, I should get credit for what I did to get to 3b (say, a double and stolen base) but scoring on that ground ball still required someone else. A different "someone else" in both situations and maybe a run doesn't score. We want to, as accurately as we can, determine only what one, singular player is capable of doing. So, we cut out the static, the noise, as much as possible. These are viewed as "team statistics" and not player specific ones. You can use these concepts to understand why things like ERA (which is affected greatly by team defense for example), RBI, runs scored, etc are largely considered obsolete. They had their moment but we're beyond them as meaningful data points in player evaluation. I think from a team perspective they may share some interest, but for individual players, they do not.

You're looking far too deeply into that analogy, my friend. That was to demonstrate on the very surface level how we simply can't weigh everything equally, not demonstrate every depth of how OBP and SLG are not to be weighed the same. It's not a full 1:1. I would caution to not throw the baby out with the bathwater here or make the analogy more than it needs to be. To be fair to myself and my post, that would be a fairly strong misrepresentation of the data I am trying to help people understand.

No. That all evens out in sample size. Those are all anecdotes, and can simply be a luck based outcome. Remember, how I said outcome based predictions can be an issue previously? Well, this is a great example. The reality is mediocre and poor hitters in the MLB are still professional hitters and are capable of running into a pitch. Just like Paul Skenes is human and capable of hanging a ball, or leaving something with bad placement. That means eventually, there's going to be a mediocre talent over their career of 15-20 PA's against Skenes who looks really good, but the rest of his career isn't. He got lucky to run into some pitches and Skenes was unlucky to hang a few balls to that same guy; it's a convergence of the reality of luck. We don't want anecdotes to win the day. A good example of this is former Cub Matt Sczur. Over his career, he had an 81 wRC+; so he was roughly 20% worse than league average. That's bad. Against LHP, he had a 90 wRC+, so, better, yet, still bad. However, in his 8 plate appearances against (likely) HoF pitcher Clayton Kershaw he had a home run and two doubles! Looks like a star! But we know even against lefties he's 10% worse than league average. We wouldn't want those PA's to make him out to be something he's not. Chances are with a larger sample size we'd realize he got lucky to get those outcomes in such a small sample. That'd be a bad data set. We need more than anecdotes. In a 600 plate appearance sample size, for example, anecdotes get washed away with a deluge of data. Large sample sets, like, playing half of your games in Coors field will be fixed with the "+" but over the course of a full MLB season, a few PA's against player X won't change anything (as it shouldn't).

They're fairly close most of the time, but not always. Even a 5 point swing is a bit more than it would seem, as the data is really a percent. So a 110 wRC+ hitter (or a 110 OPS+) is considered 10% better than league average (average is 100). Being a 123 wRC+ hitter vs a 118 wRC+ means a 5% swing above average. Regardless, even if they're close, wRC+ is the better indicator. OPS+ isn't terrible, but if our goal is to be as accurate as possible, wRC+ is just more accurate. Which helps in both fWAR and in terms of just looking at offensive value. And you're welcome! Always glad to help. Baseball data is a vast pit and there's some red herrings within it. Many data points can sometimes seem relevant but used incorrectly paint a wrong picture. I'm a big fan of "it takes a community" and "pay it forward". There's a ton in the data I learn from others, too! Together we can all understand baseball better.

I understand any skepticism on the end of Ricketts. He deserves no defense for his spending patterns. Fair worry. Fair critique. What I think we need to move away from is the "they've never spent X, so they wont spend Y" form of belief as to why the Cubs won't sign Tucker. That's how records work. The Mets had never signed a $400m deal, let alone a $700m deal. The Jays had never signed a $500m deal let alone a $200m deal. This is how record spending works. Its pretty widely believed the Cubs offered over $400m to Ohtani. I get that people like to throw around accusations like "that's just a token offer to appease fans that they knew hed never sign" stuff, but thats just conjecture. Reality is they seemed to be willing to go there. We will see how in-the-weeds they get with Kyle. I don't think he will command over $500 and I do think the Cubs will be in the ballpark ultimately. But I am optimistic.

fWAR uses OAA and other statcast data where as bWAR uses DRS. Generally speaking OAA and statcast is superior to DRS, yes. I do think the gap between the two is less then that of OPS+ and wRC+ simply due to the wonky nature of defensive metrics and how far along we are on offensive data points. But its another factor.

OPS by nature is flawed because of how it weighs OBP (on a scale from 0-1.000) and SLG (on a scale from 0-4.000), By weighing them equally, despite different scales, it creates an issue. Think of it like this, if I have two quarters, and four nickels, saying I have "six" is misleading. Having four quarters and two nickels is also "six" but one of these is more than the other. By saying that "one coin = the same" we create a situation where it could look like both are the same "six" but in one situation I have $.70 and the other I have $1.10. In a similar way, this is how OPS treats OBP and SLG, where two 100 OPS+ hitters are not really the same. The "+" is helpful, in any data set, as when you see "+" it means that the number is adjusted for things such as hitting environment (we know that the steroid era was a different offensive environment than, say, the dead-ball era) and ballpark. Things like that. It can help us compare data sets year to year, but also player to player. We know hitting 80 games in Coors isn't like hitting 80 games in, say, Seattle. OPS+ does do this because it has the "+" involved, but the scaling issue is the prime culprit of where the issues are. If you see an "x" this is "expected"; also using league data to determine what we should "expect" - useful to determine luck. wRC+ looks to fix the scaling issues within OPS while also still adding in the "+" that adjusts for hitting environments. It scales the two more accurately and thus creates a better silver-bullet one data point. In my coin example, it would determine one of us had 70 cents and the other a dollar-ten. From a personal standpoint, it's the best way to value offense in 2025. Using anything else is purposefully using outdated methods. OPS+ had it's time in the sun a decade or more ago, but we're beyond that. It's like using an iPod Touch instead of an iPhone with spotify on it. You-do-you, but there's more efficient ways of doing it, ya know? bWAR fo pitching will factor in ERA, or at least, a version of it. But this is inherently where my issues come from bWAR; results based data doesn't really always equate well to prediction models. If the goal of data is not only to determine current value, but also help us predict value in the future, using results based like bWAR is less useful. FIP, which looks to eliminate noise around a pitcher, is better, IMO. Now, it does create an interesting conundrum with someone like Ben Brown. xFIP can tend to hide pitchers who give up contact that doesn't land as a HR; a double isn't really found within xFIP's data set, for example (FIP looks at things only a pitcher controls, such as Ks, BBs and HRs as a double would involve defense and that creates that "noise"). But the idea behind xFIP is that in situations like we see with Brown, eventually he'll give up home runs and we'll find the data.

For pitchers, bWAR uses a formular that is more results based than fWAR. I find fWAR, thus, a better indicator for future performance as it uses xFIP over things like runs created. For offense fWAR relies on wRC+ as its foundation where as bWAR uses OPS+. wRC+ is a better weighted offensive statistic than OPS+, which isnt horrible, but wRC+ was created to fix the issues inherent in OPS+. In terms of "silver bullet offensive metrics" wRC+ stands the tallest and gives fWAR a better foundation for their numbers. On both sides I find fWAR a better model. WAR is imperfect and has some inherent flaws like all data points (no where near enough to discredit it however) but fWAR is the best publicly available all-encompassing number we have because foundationally, it uses better input data. At least in my opinion. (Though as an aside it remains somewhat interesting at times to compare the two).

Levine specifically mentioned trading for a SP. So this isnt it. Likely just swapping Pearson for Fulmer so they have more BP coverage.

It would be the first time he didn't get five days of rest all year, so catching him Thursday is probably not the worst of outcomes, even if he's a pretty good arm.

I think this is a pretty unfair assessment. He has 35 PA's so far in Myrtle, hasn't been in the system for even a full year yet, and is very much in the mold of "developmental prospect". He's not coming from, say an SEC school, but a midwest prep-program (so not even super-high-level pre-ball). Let's get past 35 PA's before we diagnose what his issues are. Instead, I'd recommend focusing on a couple of other things: 1. The Cubs tend to select a hand-picked overslot player in the 11th round. Zyhir Hope was a similar pick. 2. Lovach was slated to go to Arkansas, which has been one of the better baseball programs of recent times. 3. His body is very much a "work in progress". 4. This is the first time he's ever focused solely on hitting, he was a two-way prospect up to the draft I think he's a good developmental prospect who hit better in Arizona than I expected and made it to Myrtle faster than I expected. I thought he was going to spend the entire year with the Complex team and be locked into a weight room. Clearly the org was happy enough with his .362 wOBA and 20 K% in Arizona to move him up. There's real upside here. I suspect he will be more of a "slow burner", and think the jump will take place not in 2025, but in 2026 regardless.

Today is a little harder to swallow, but I'll give him this; the weather the conditions are not positive for any pitcher. The Cubs have tagged a really good arm for four today already it's super hot/humid, and the Cubs are in the middle of a 16 games in 17 game stretch. Even if Rea serves up a bomb, it's probably better than putting Nate Pearson out there and having him walk a guy and then giving up a home run. Rea throws strikes and anyone in the league feels like could go yard. The Cubs need to preserve relievers a bit. One of the things that I think Counsell knows the best is that it's a 162 game season and you can't live and die on every game. I really like that about him.

Boyd was hurt. The Cubs have said his shoulder had a huge bruise on it and he couldn't go back out. That's not on Craig.

New Shaw mechanics.

Well, their body types don't have anything to do with their debuts. It isn't like Moises Ballesteros height/weight/body type were a secret, you know? That doesn't make sense. Like I said, if you have concerns about him defensively, then I think it's a fair critique. I think if you have concerns about the power profile at DH, I think that's a fair critique. Being concerned about a rookie over a 10-game-sample size is not a fair critique. Almost every prospect has struggled in their initial run currently at the MLB level right now. Much of this is a belief that as teams fear pitching injuries teams would rather not "waste bullets" in Triple-A, thus making the jump between Triple-A and MLB larger than it has been.. A recent anecdote is to look at how the Reds have dealt with Chase Burns, their top pitching prospect. Burns is the #2 pick last year. He went 11 innings last year post-draft, 40 in Double-A and then made just 12 innings in Louisville (their Triple-A affiliate). He's pitching in Cincinnati Tuesday night making his debut less than a year after his draft day. I don't to down play it, he's a very good prospect and has crushed each level, but this is fast. Because these arms are skipping over this level right now, guys like Ballesteros and Anthony are getting a rude awakening when they come to the MLB because they just don't get a chance to see Burns often. I just wouldn't worry myself over what I think I saw over 20 PA's. It's meaningless data on that front. I share some questions over his position and power myself. His debut? Not a drop of concern. That's just what rookies look like. Defensively he's incapable of playing OF. It's likely catcher, 1b and DH only, and I think as a catcher, it's far less likely he's a 100 game guy. I think he's more of a 70 game type who plays DH and 1b on his offdays.

Yeah, my assumption is that the team is using the bench, getting guys a day off, and cycling in a lefty. But with how limited the Cubs' bench has been, it's kind if interesting to see them use anyone not named-Justin-Turner in back-to-back days.

Yeah. I think it's very likely that we lose at least one of the Caissie, Ballesteros, Alcantara, Rojas, or Wiggins group if they acquire something above the Andrew Heaney tier of pitcher. I'm not sure who it'll be, but headlining a trade with like James Triantos and Christian Franklin for a SP you slot in using pen for a playoff rotation is a pipedream that happens only on reddit, bluesky and forums.

I think it depends on a lot. If the last-17-innings is an indication of who Alcantara is for the next 1.5 years he's more than worth a top-50 prospect, especially if you believe the Cubs pitching infrastructure is better than Miami's. Thankfully, I doubt there's a trade that's going to go down for the next few weeks so that 17-inning-sample will likely jump to around 30 or so to give you a better idea. But the way I think we should approach any trade we discuss (real, rumor, idea or otherwise) is that "if it doesn't feel like it hurts, it's probably not realistic". Would it kind of suck to trade Caissie or Alcantara or Ballesteros or whatever? Yeah it would. But that's what real trades take, generally, a little pain from us to acquire something good.

Brujan getting some run lately. I wonder a few things about this: 1. Have the Cubs decided more-and-more to use their bench a bit more? 2. Are the Cubs getting "done" with Brujan? They tend to do this with bench players when they're over it; they give them a few "last chances" to impress and then DFA them. On #2, Long has been in a bit of a rut lately. He has seen an uptick in 3b, but the Cubs would still be lacking some bench options if they swapped him for Brujan. Instead, maybe could the Cubs go to Franklin as a 4th OF and let Jon Berti get some run? He's been pretty bad but they could trust him more. I'd guess it's just getting to "doldrums of summer" and it's the Cubs know they have to give some days off.