Jason Ross

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the other way around. If you'd like to make a point, than it's upon you to provide evidence, not demand people find the obscure evidence. Secondly, your goal posts have changed, your initial point was not that WAR devaluates relievers but that it devalues high-leverage relievers. I really do want these articles. If they're as easily found as you claim they are, simply posting a link to them would be quite easy. What I can say is I did what you suggested and googled, exactly "War Undervalues Relievers". The top result was from fangraphs, so I guess we're using fWAR (awesome, that's my favorite!). The article states this: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/war-and-relievers/ The article can be found at the link. It does not seem to support your premise, however. As stated, each batter is more critical, but this is actually accounted for in fWAR. This means that fWAR does not misinterpret high leverage relievers. Now, there is this article: http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2017/04/why-war-based-systems-underestimate.html But the issue is this; it's written after the Fangraphs article and quotes a 2010 article. We can see that in this quote, here So while I think the article is getting at what you want, it is using pretty outdated information. Fangraphs itself, in 2018, claims that leverage is handled in fWAR, while this article, using data 8 years previous claims it's not. Should there be an article I should be looking at more in depth? I'd be glad to read it.

Well, you may believe that a simple statement is proof, but sadly, I would have to disagree with you. If you can provide data to prove your statement of "WAR devalues leverage", I'd be more than glad to dig into it and read it. However, until you can show that kind of proof, I'll simply have to respectfully disagree with you as I have yet to see anything to provide evidence to the statement. Your simple quote of "leverage exists" is sadly not enough for me,

I'm pretty good at things like WAR; I'd be able to describe the difference in fWAR, bWAR and eWAR (as well as why fWAR is the superior). I'm also very understanding of what "leverage: ist. My question to you was to prove that WAR (I'd prefer fWAR, as again, I find it superior) undervalues leverage, It's really very simple; If you have real data to prove that, I'd be glad to see it. It'd interest me, and I'd love to see it. I'm much less interested in some random quote. Do you have an article written by a respected author to show why WAR devalues leverage?

Yeah, I don't think either as good as Bednar. I just think the general difference is...minimal. Especially for where the Cubs are at, a guy who's marginally better probably doesn't matter unless you think they're truly a WS team and we need to find success at every margin. There would be a time I would say "Yes, get the better player", I just don't think today we're there. Totally fine with agreeing to disagree. I live in the real world, sometimes I have good ideas, and frankly, sometimes I'm wrong.

A 40-Man roster is 40 players deep. The Cubs shouldn't have an issue finding 39 players and keeping Alcantara. The upside is real here; he's a possible 60/Hit,. 60/power player who can cover any OF position (though I think if we're being realistic, won't be in CF based on his size). The Cubs kind of haven't been the best dev team in baseball, but realistically, the current dev team (Breslow, Kantrovtitz) hasn't had much time; it's like 2021-now. We're already seeing fruits with Steele, Alzolay, Morel, Amaya. I think that suggests the team is capable. We're a little too young to know if they dev system works for many of their young hitters. I think it's fine to be questionable whether the Cubs can realistically turn into a dev powerhouse. With that said, there's a pretty consistent turnover on Cub development each year where high end prospects are more than naught, moving to higher levels and finding success. I'm actually pretty excited about where the talent goes. I don't think that should make it entirely off limits, but I think right now, the Cubs should be selective on where those prospects go. I just don't think we're at "trade for a closer" stage.

That's really good. It's still 4.4 fWAR. It's a marginal gain over, say, Paul Seawawls' 2.9 fWAR, who's likely available, or Andrew Chafin's 3.0 fWAR. Why we should be careful trying to build on the margins. I don't disagree, I think David Bednar is really good. I think the Cubs are pretty good at deciding who's a good RP and who isn't, and paying a prospect premium for a RP seems like bad business.

How many are showing MLB success? Well, that's a bit unfair because many of these prospects are currently in the MiLB still. But if we want some examples of prospects who struggled initially at levels and then broke out: Owen Caissie: struggled initially at A, A+ and AA only to breakout mid season PCA: Struggled initially at A+ only to break out Haydn McGeary: Struggled initially at AA only to have broken out Moises Ballestros: Struggled initially at A+, has been signfiicantly better Kevin Alcantara: Struggled initially at A ball to break out. Seemingly has done similar in A+ Alexander Canario: Struggled at AA, only to break out I think there's a pretty strong data set that the Cubs have with hitters in the MiLB, IMO. There's a pattern we can see as we look at prospect in the Cub systems; prospects generally struggle from April through May, and then June/Mid-June we see breakouts. Will this translate to MLB success? Well, I can't say. We have seen Christopher Morel and Miguel Amaya breakout in ways at the MLB level. We might see Matt Mervis do the same, if given a chance. I don't think "MLB Success" is a far barometer for players in A-AA right now. We'll see what they do.

That is a good thing in theory. However, per Fangraphs, "it's not predictive" and "should not be used for player evaluation". https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/wpa/

Maybe they aren't. RP's are super volatile. They don't pitch a ton. I don't think that fWAR should be taken entirely literally, but I also think we have to understand that maybe high leverage RP's are more valuable on the margins than they are in general.

Yeah, we'll have to entirely disagree with that valuation of Kevin Alcantara here. I think Alcantara is a pretty wonderful prospect. There's some risk here, but he's been figuring things out the last month. I can't tell you how to view prospects, it's subjective, but he's someone who's posted a whopping 218 wRC+ over his last 80 PAs, a shrinking K% (under 24%) a far increased walk rate (14.9%) a much more refined approach, and 14 xBH in that span. Development isn't linear and Alcantara, right up to an unfortunate calf strain was suggesting that he had figured out A+. It's not enough for me to say definitively, but this is also a similar path many Cub prospects have followed over the last few seasons. A month or two of struggles followed by a significant break out. We'll see where go from here, but I think we should be very careful on using season long data here.

That isn't "proof" so much as you just kind of made up a quote from no one, then pretended you "proved" something. You stated that WAR undervalues relievers. I'd need to seem some data to prove that.

Does it? Please prove that. I just valued David Bednar as two 50 FV prospects. That's a pretty high valuation.

It certainly could. Don't disagree. But the Cubs have done a wonderful job finding useful RP's for basically nothing. Merryiweather, Alzolay, Fulmer, Leiter JR. The found Tepera, they found Robertson. Why would the Cubs, a team capable of finding useful arms for cheap, suddenly pay the premium for a RP when the cost/benefit doesn't match?

Bednar is going to cost a ton. He's been a 1.8 fWAR player in 2023. I think that's a bit high; his xFIP is 3.70, because he has a 2.0% HR/FB%. That's likely impossible to retain, so he's going to give up HR's. He's never been this kind of xFIP beater. So I'll use his 202 data to be fair to him and his value; 1.5 fWAR. So what does 1.5 fWAR cost over 3 years? Well, that's 4.5 fWAR. So what's the free-market for 4.5fWAR? It's hard to tell. It used to be $7-$8m per fWAR, but inflation exists, and this is higher now than it was. So let's bump to $9m per to be safe, though this might be kind of low (elite fWAR per roster spot is worth more, realistically). At $4.5 fWAR that's something like $40m in surplus. Jordan Wicks is like, $25m in surplus. So you'd need basically, two Jordan Wicks type prospects, just to get David Bednar. Wicks profiles as an upside #3 SP in AAA already. He's a good prospect. Not untradable, but good. But we know RP's are super volatile. Do you trade two 50 FV prospects for one David Bednar knowing he probably doesn't finish the job? That's a lot. I'm pro-trading-prospects. But the value has to match. Right now, Bednar is good, but just doesn't match what it'd cost. We can do better.

Thank you for the kind words!

Don't think that's short sighted or wrong at all. I agree with that, too! The reality of prospects is that each prospect is more likely to fail than to succeed. I'm the "prospect guy" generally, and even I think this is true. With that said, I don't wan to sell high value prospects for short term gains just to make 2023 feel more fun regardless of the value of that prospect. There's a goldilocks zone where I'm all in; trading the right prospects for the right MLB talent. Guys like Horton and Alcantara have unicorn upside (we can discuss their risks, for sure)...I wouldn't give them up for a RP, for example. But I'd give them up for a 24 3b who's a good bet to be 3 fWAR over a handful of seasons. IDK who that is, I'm not saying I know who that is, but there's situations in which I'd expend Horton (who I truly believe is going to be a devastating MLB SP if he avoids injury) and Alcantara (While a bit away, has a really unique skillset) and there are ones I wouldn't. You want to use those prospects in value deals if you have to. Horton is about as close to "untouchable" as PCA is, in my world. Alcantara more available, but only in elite deals.

Why not a reliever? Answer is simple; reliever's don't throw enough to impact enough games. It's why they're so volatile. If you throw 70IP, and 6 of them are terrible, you can really effect your own outcome, as well as the outcome on a season. That might be 6 games you horsefeathers up. Relievers can go in these really weird cycles where they're good for 2 and then lay eggs unlike SP's and hitters who get sample sizes so large that 6 games mean little to nothing (as they should, realistically). Reliever's are finishing pieces, the Cubs are not a finishing piece away, IMO. They need some real holes filled. These types effect the margins more for teams who are looking for completing pieces (EX. 2016 Cubs) less so teams with major holes (EX. 2023 Cubs). I wouldn't expend impact prospects for volatile relievers. Especially as the Cubs have proven for three years, you can find interesting relievers for essentially free if you're looking hard enough. "Tied" to the Cubs I think is unfair. I think there are controllable players out there. Whether or not journalist X has a source that the Cubs are interested in them should be something we should worry about. If the Cubs aren't interested in them, well that's damning on the front office, no? A hitter at a position we need, or a SP, should not be out of our reach, in theory, The system we have should be basically deep enough to buy any MLB player we want. Should we pay what another team wants? Debatable as well. There's a lot of this we just can't be privy to.

Yeah, wouldn't even consider that. Wicks has #3 upside in AAA and might be ready sometime in September for starts and Alcantara has incredible upside and was absolutely blistering the last month prior to pulling up with a tweaked calf (he'll be back very shortly). Bednar is a really good reliever, but he's a reliever. He offers control. But he's a reliever. The Chicago Cubs can get aggressive and target controllable players...but he's a reliever. You've got to go bigger for the 2023 Cubs to consider moving prospects like that for me. If it was just Wicks? We can talk. Adding Alcantara? We can lets someone else pay that. We're not there yet. There are players I'd move Alcantara or Wicks for. David Bednar isn't one. Not now. Not yet.

Damnit. I'll be honest with you, there are two things I have great issues remembering: whether or not G comes before or after H and whether or not July has 30 or 31 days. The first step to admission is that you have a problem, right?

Deadline is August 1st. Today is the 29th. They have two games yet to go. I do agree, today they won't sell. Come Monday night there remains a possibility the equation can change...primarily I think on Stroman. I don't see a situation in which many others are moved, however. And I think even in a Stroman trade the Cubs may still soft buy a rental bat like Cron or Candelario and a BP arm. I think "firesale" is off the table. I think Stroman moving remains possible.

I'm sure the 2022 Brewers thought the same thing when they dealt Hader only to turn Ruiz into Contreras. I'm not saying the Cubs would find that particularly easy, or that it's particularly a great idea to trade for a prospect today thinking they can do something later, but it isn't like we don't have pretty recent anecdotal evidence to how something like that could turn into 2024 help for the Cubs. It's possible is all I'm saying. I'll say this; I think today is pretty unlikely the Cubs will trade Bellinger (not zero but approaching). I think the next two days and potential offers could create a scenario in which Stroman is moved, but think that's below 30% and if the Cubs dont go 0-2 over the next two, think that number will drop significantly. I don't think those reports are wrong. As of today, I expect the Cubs will have both Bellinger and Stroman still on the roster post TDL.

A cue to sell? No, not exactly. But the equation is quite different as well than being 3.5 back on Monday (or better) and may cause the Cubs to far more seriously explore moving Stroman before losing him for nothing versus the alternative which is then a clear sign to be more aggressive. Especially if we are living in a sellers market.

Yeah, I'm re-working my pre-season top-X right now (waiting till post deadline to settle). I think he's around the James Triantos-s of the system for me. He gets a boost for being in AAA and really only needing a strong 250 PA sample size and health to be on the MLB radar while getting a drop in the risk considering how bad the last 2 seasons have been. So that's like the 11-20 range or so. I think FG's dropping him to the mid-40's is just ridiculous (and I say this as someone who's been a Logenhagen fan, but this feels like a hot-take that just doesn't land for me), though he deserves a drop. I think the first line of your post is a pretty decent way to describe it (I like it, and I'm probably going to steal it later!). My expectations of how likely he is to reach his ceiling is fading, but I still think there's a player there who can reappear if bad luck disappears and allows some positive development to occur.

I wouldn't sell tonight. Come Monday night, the Cubs could conceivably be 5.5 games back again. I think the Cubs will likely have to go down to then to determine what to do. At 5.5, the ask is still pretty big and I think the equation becomes far more difficult. Not saying that happens, but I think the Cubs ultimate choice will really be made with where they are in the next 2 days. From a fan standpoint, it'd be a lot more fun if they're 4 games back.

Yeah he does have a back issue now, but it's what the back issue is, isn't really known. We know he has "something" with his back right now, but the only back issue he could have reoccurring would be the stress fracture he had in the AFL (the other "back" issue was less an issue with his back and actually to with his vascular system. It just so happened the vascular issue was around his back. Think like sciatica type of a thing. But everything I can find is that's not a reoccurring issue once it's fixed). This may be the first reoccurring issue, or it might not. Until we know, I hesitate to call it reoccurring to be fair to Davis.