Jason Ross

There is this odd thing that Cubs fans do. They will on one hand complain that the Cubs don't do everything to win, will handwring over every lineup decision. Then when the Cubs make a data based decision that they "don't like" will complain about that, too. Yeah, Brujan sucks. Shaw is bad against sinkers and Bello is bad against LHH. Its fine. This is coming from the #1 Matt Shaw Fan Club guy. Its okay he isnt starting today.

It's almost as if that Bryan Bello guy isn't so good against LHH, or something.

Instead of that, I would like to focus in on Ian Happ. Can we talk about him?

Except that Bello has huge R/L splits and Shaw has yet to show aptitude against sinkers, Bello's most frequent pitch. There is clear reason that is beyond a trade.

Bryan Bello has significant splits against LHH. He walks LHH 2x more than RHH (114% vs 5.6%) and has a 4.71 xFIP against LHH where as RHH, he has a 3.67 xFIP. This checks out as his two most used pitches are his sinker and his sweeper and these pitches have significant splits against opposite-handed hitters Matt Shaw hasn't hit well enough on the year to be penciled in against a pitcher with heavy splits. It is why Reese McGuire is drawing in on a night game after a day game. Carson Kelly could handle this one, but they went with a LHH heavy lineup. The Cubs are forcing Bello off his two best pitches, or, are forcing him to use them in incredibly disadvantageous situations. As well, Imanaga is a heavy FB% pitcher. 3b defense less needed. So Shaw is a good defender and RHH. Best to sit him, even if Brujan sucks. It's more than just Shaw, it's that one of them is lefty and they're playing the numbers.

Was just about to come here and say that. With his arm slot being where it is, his fastball siting at 90-92 probably has significant movement to it. It looks like it's more of a traditional "two-seam" fastball with glove side run. With the movement on his sweeper, my guess, especially at MB, is that his fastball's shape is solid and creates a really hard decision point for young players because the two pitches are breaking away from each other; one down-and-away from a RHH and the other looks like it should sweep away from them due to how he has a low slot (like the sweeper) but has a bump back into them the other way late enough that they can't adjust. When I look at the swing decisions from the highlight video, specially from the RHH'ers, they are looking off the plate, each time convinced that fastball is outside. My guess is they read "sweeper" based on arm-slot and the pitch ran back to the outside of the plate and surprised them. I really like where he's throwing that fastball. His sweeper placement on a strikeout to a LHH was...I think very much the result of Low-A. Upper level hitters should bang that pitch (2nd strikeout). If he can't add a few MPH to the fastball, RHH middle reliever might be the ultimate route. Get the fastball up to 92-94 and his two-seam is probably just enough to run away from LHH in a pinch, but that Jose Cuas comp stylistically matches up with his current profile!

Yeah, I mean, this is the reason why someone like Isaac Parades is built specifically for Tropicana and Daikon Park (formerly Minute Maid. Apparently, he's got...the juice at these parks. Heh. Heh...I'll see my way out). He has pretty weak EV but extremely high pull rate and flyball rate. Cody Bellinger is similar. Pulling the ball can hide weak contact. It's why teams try to get kids to pull the ball more. Now, I don't think that's a reason to ignore xData in any way shape or form; there are statistical outliers among any data, it's knowing the data. Kyle Hendricks was a FIP-beater; if you don't walk hitters and get a lot of ground balls, you can have a better ERA than your xERA or xFIP. It's why we don't use data as silver bullets and instead, use a lot of data to explain a hitter. I like the idea of adding direction to xData, it's a good thing, but I also think when we discuss hitters, it's important to bring up lots of data points regardless, which helps to limit the concept of xData beaters. Much like we can find the Kyle Hendricks of the world, and have for the better part of a decade been able to identify a skillset of pitchers who typically keep their ERA above their xFIP, we can do the same with hitters (and to behonest, have been for a bit). When it pertains to Matt Shaw, notice where his footing is today versus where it was, say, a week ago. I noticed it yesterday. I mentioned back on Friday as the lineup was shown for Yankees series that I suspected we would see two things: 1. Matt Shaw would sit the entire Yankees series 2. We would see him pop back up in the lineup directly after the ASB with something new to diagnose. Not to pat myself on the back too hard, but outside of a PH attempt on Sunday, kind of nailed both. It was a hunch but based on how the Cubs like to do these things, had a pretty good feeling on that hunch. I'll leave the updates to Shaw below in a spoiler so if you want to challenge yourself to notice what I did, you can play along! Or if you already noticed it/just want to discuss it, peep it below:

Not at Knoxville. Id expect he plays plenty at SS. Part of why he played 2b or non-SS in SB was because Hernandez is there too and they split the time.

I've wondered that, if deep down, he feels a little cheated by that. But as well, you have as rough of a start as he had to the year at times, it wasn't like it wasn't without cause. From an outsider perspective.

Dude, the baseball world is so huge now a days, there's no shame. Dorks like me know who Lance is because when I'm bored I want to learn about the difference between observed movement and induced movement.

I 'm not sure if it was posted back in the draft thread, but if not, Hartshorn was intereviewed after the draft. When asked about the Cubs and the process, he basically said that "he had a number" and it was the Cubs who called and gave him his number. Had teams in higher rounds but they wouldn't meet it. (Which, an aside, dig how candid he was! Great attitude in general) I'd guess he's getting a good number, yes.

I'm really a big fan of his. If you're ever bored, his Youtube Channel will make you feel really smart by the end. I've learned a lot about the real data behind pitching; movement profiles, spin and seam-shifted wake. It's awesome stuff.

xBA of .520, .520 and .310 with two swings over 97mph. New mechanics. Changed his front foot placement.

Caleb. My guy.

Nope! You can be awarded a hit on a catchers interference as the hitter gets the choice of either 1b or the result of the PA. If the batter instead choices 1b, it does not count as a PA or impact OBP.

Probably one of the absolute best baseball minds around. He works with Marquee and does MLB.com Pipeline stuff. His YouTube channel might be next to Foolish Bailey as the two best baseball channels. Period. He focuses a lot on prospects but mainly pitching and pitching development. A team will one day hire him and they will be better for it. Lance is the horsefeathers.

Pete. Pete. Pete. Pete.

New mechanics. Front foot is slightly open instead of closed off. Hands seemed a bit higher.

I think the Cubs are going to move OF'ers but I don't think the Ethan Conrad selection has anything to do with it. He won't make a debut in the system until 2026 due to his shoulder injury and likely isn't going to have an ETA until deep in 2027 if everything goes really fast. He won't likely replace any talent in Iowa and the Cubs still have somewhat interesting OF prospects around. He was just the best on the board. Things shift greatly in MiLB terms, so the Cubs wouldn't be shortsighted enough to draft for need in such a defined way.

The Cubs are likely to use Horton in the BP and have roster cliffs after 2026. Horton, even if not in the "rotation" will likely play an important role. Teams don't usually trade from their MLB roster, and Horton is probably among the least likely to be traded in the entire organization who's trade likelihood is above 0. I wouldn't even overly concern myself with the thought. If we saw exhaustion in a pitcher, we would expect to see some combination of loss of velo, loss of mechanics (either because they're tired and getting involuntarily "lazy" or to overthrow to compensate for lack of velo), loss of control, loss of pitch shape. I'm sure the Cubs are monitoring those things between now and end of 2026. Is he any more or less likely to regress? That's the rub, ain't it. But here's the thing that is counterintuitive to our understanding of pitchers and their fear of TJS or arm injury; pitchers, not hitters are aging more gracefully league wide. There are more pitchers aged 35+ having success than hitters. You always have the "one pitch away" fear with an arm, and Boyd has not been the picture of health. That said, if the TJS was the root cause. and that's taken care of, he may be less likely to regress as the rate of recidivism on TJS usually jumps around 6+ years out, so there's reason both way to believe he could be risky and reasons to believe he wouldn't be. Would I expect the Cubs to extend a 35+ year old Matthew Boyd post-2026? No, I wouldn't. The Cubs under Hoyer tend to target mid-rotation arms that don't pop on paper or excitement and like to get an undervalued arm based on the rest of the league. Boyd, if he repeats or comes close to repeating 2024, would be anything but; max-value Boyd. The Cubs are more likely to try to find the next Boyd than to resign the Boyd, if that makes sense.

I would guess that while anything is "non-zero" Cade Horton being in a trade feels extremely unlikely. Teams who are in the middle of pennant races rarely trade from their MLB roster as it is taking one step backwards to gain two. I would suspect Ben Brown (who is in Triple-A) or Jaxon Wiggins (who I feel is already an unlikely addition but might go in a big-type trade) are much more likely.

Yeah, his profile isn't my favorite either. I think what it comes down to is that it's just hard to dream on those guys. Like if Kepley was Kepley but was, 6"1? You could dream on something. But his size and age just means this is who he is, and you've got to really believe in it to love it. I made some comments prior about how Nico Hoerner on draft day wasn't overly exciting and wasn't my favorite pick, too. Over half a decade later, and it's clear he's a major win and among the best picks in the entire draft. Kepley kind of has that ability, too. Less likely to get there; if he was, he'd have been drafted higher, ranked higher, and given more slot than he'll get, but there's a not-so-crazy world in three years where Kepley is starting in CF for someone, has a 95 wRC+ and is a plus-defender in CF and on the bases and everyone goes "man, he's pretty damn good!" (either that or whatever team he's starting for is trying to trade him every offseason like they do Hoerner. Nothing in between)

This is a feature, and not a bug. Many times we associate not striking out with contact in the zone, but the top three players least likely to strike out swing at a very high% of pitches out of the zone compared to league average. Why? Because a great way to avoid strikeouts is to be able to make a load of contact on chase pitches. Most hitters, when chasing out of the zone swing and miss. These guys, make contact. Easy way to not strike out is to hit the ball in play (though far easier said than done). Beyond that Hoerner is an above average hitter (by 2% this year, and 1% over his career) and well above average for his position. His BA with RISP and his base running don't factor into that. He's just a better hitter than people realize.

The Kansas City Royals, who have an 11% chance to make the playoffs just bought Adam "replacement player" Frazier with the belief he could help them win. They gave up an overager who doesn't look like much of a prospect at age 28, but he's crushing Triple-A, and wasn't nothing either. As much as we might think these teams should sell, the slim prospect of making the playoffs or having a strong two weeks is still enticing to teams.

I will never grow sick of questions. Keep asking, my guy. Baseball is a community. Consider this "passing it on". I only learned because I asked questions and people two decades ago gave me a crash course. So, think of WAR as our best single-all-encompassing number, but don't think of it in absolutes. WAR in general is a great approximation, taking in tons of data points (offense, defense, ballpark, neutralizing for era, pitching, etc) and dumping it into an easy-to-digest number, like...four. On the surface, that's kind of insane. Sincerely, it's a revolutionary concept for a sport so inundated in different numbers to boil something down to a number (in almost every case) under 10, with just a single decimal point and it mean something. Like, when you think it of it, it's kind of insane. But because of that, it's prone to being somewhat inaccurate in terms of absolution. Anecdotally, Kyle Tucker has been worth 3.8 fWAR and Francisco Lindor, 3.6. Should we really concern ourselves over fractional aspects of a win? Nah, they're virtually the same value. Maybe your team needs a RF over a SS or whatever, but value-proposition wise? The same, essentially. No use debating it. When it comes to fWAR and run differential, etc, lots of things go into that. Strength of schedule can play a part (of which fWAR does not account for, because over the a 162 grind it's not really a factor in it) especially in partial seasons, sequencing plays a part of it, and a full-team aspect plays apart in it. For example, we can't just add all of the fWAR up on a team and say "well, their fWAR and their win totals are different so something here is fishy!" It's a cool way to project things out, but they have enough variabilities that they don't entirely equate. That said, they usually are close; for example, having the best run differential and the 3rd best fWAR makes sense. We rarely see a team leading in fWAR and then, say, 22nd in RD. That would raise some weird flags.