squally1313

Are there good metrics for a bullpen pitcher?

Yeah, you can either 'failure model' your way through league minimum dudes and AAAA guys or you can pay guys $8-$12m a year and also 'failure model' through them but more expensively or you could spend $75m/year on your bullpen.

Sure, I don't disagree with this. I think we use 'luck' as a high level term to describe non-sustainable events or pieces of events that have been largely proven to be non-sustainable. Wins are wins, however you got them, they are banked and credited to your team, and the Cubs haven't gotten enough of them one way or another. The simplest way I can describe it is if you declared tomorrow that the MLB season would go another 100 games starting Monday, you could make a strong argument that relying on pythag over W/L records YTD would be a better indicator of what your record would be for those 100 games. Obviously we're coming to a significant cut off point and rosters will churn and guys will grow 6 months older and pick up and lose skills and injuries and I think we're all aware of that. I think CubinNY would disagree with the statement that the job of an offensive player is to produce runs. He would say it's to win games, I think. Apologies if not. And, honestly, it's not an incorrect argument. But all of our individual statistic tracking (that drives 'player value') is based on a players ability to produce runs (or avoid outs). And vice versa for pitching and defense. And so a statistic that looks, at a macro level, of how many runs an offense were produced vs how many runs were allowed, with no regard to how those lined up in 9 inning chunks, is beneficial in predicting future performance.

Yeah makes sense. I think part of my issue is that I'm less enamored with Castillo/Keller/Eovaldi than I am with the other names thrown out there who I think are better but also happen to be cheaper. Agreed that one of the big trade bats most likely adds a big salary, and Kelly isn't insignificant.

Is this just an argument against the concept of luck, or I guess using the term 'luck'?

I'm sure you have this broken out elsewhere so apologies, but is there a way to do that and also somewhat effectively allocate the $55m or so (before Cody) coming off the books? I generally agree with your statement, just...want to fill out the budget and keep the money out of Tom's pockets and haven't been able to square the two.

Cody Bellinger has made more money than Dansby over the last two years, the decision was made to sign him twice, and he has been significantly less productive (8.8 fWAR to 6.4) since the beginning of last year. His defense and offensive metrics both took turns in the wrong direction from last year. He can be pretty easily replaced if not upgraded next year if not for this player option that we gave him, which would guarantee him all of $500k less than Swanson (and he can do it again a year from now!), vs the gaping hole at shortstop we would have if not for Swanson, who you could extremely pessimistically pencil in for 3 fWAR next year. And yet we've spent, roughly, 10x the amount of message board and column space bemoaning this consensus top 35ish player who plays a key position where we have no other options. Bizarre.

Just to try and get ahead of this being a thing, Hoyer has been very aggressive is churning through relievers, has found a couple potentially reliable guys in Miller and Lopez for next year and has otherwise pretty quickly dumped them as soon as they proved they weren't effective, and ultimately like at least 6 of your 8 relievers should be 'cheap' and so these are totally harmless, potentially helpful moves.

Not to sound snarky, but do you have a better explanation for that last sentence besides 'bad luck/randomness'? And to split hairs a little bit, the (rough) theory behind pythag is that hitters and pitchers can't really control ordering of events, clutch isn't actually a thing, etc. And so if you took the cumulative performances from everyone on the team last year and then had them spray out in a random order 10,000 times, the theory is that our average record would be better than what it currently is. No one is necessarily claiming that this is going to translate into next year, we have age regression, changes in roster, BABIP gods, etc. Just that the overall production of our offense and defense/pitching (measured in terms of runs scored for the offense and runs allowed for the defense/pitching) implies a higher level of talent than the record currently shows.

I'm not outright dismissing your point here because it's becoming a bit of a pattern, but another way of looking at this is that individual hitters, by nature, are going to have good and bad stretches over the course of the year and for the last two years we've had all our hitters essentially get hot at once. I don't know how you gameplan in the offseason to fix that problem, there doesn't seem to be any way to correct it/predict it. I don't really buy into like, one player's success rubbing off on another's.....they're all individual players going through individual events. There's maybe some marginal benefit to the rest of your team putting up an 8 run lead and letting you face their center fielder on the mound, but that's minimal at best. So maybe it is a bit of unluckiness that gets reflected in the pythag numbers?

Is he saying that in terms of production this year they are on 'equal footing'? Yes, that's what that statistic measures. Am I saying that I would take Swanson's rest of career production over Freeman's rest of career production? Also yes.

The Rockies are 26 games out of a playoff spot. They are certainly not in a position to give up resources for a late 20s outfielder essentially making $60m over the next two years.

Fair. Also agreed that Nico and Busch aren't likely targets for the Mariners and Jays. Think I'd rather pay the extra for one of the cost controlled starters in Seattle.

This is in a Bellinger-opt out world, right? Castillo is 20, Vlad is low 20s, Lowe is another 10.

Couple things on the above: What's the story on Lowe's options? Basically has team options for $10m the next two years per Cots. Was worth 2.9 fWAR last year, 2.2 this year. That seems like an easy decision to pick that up but I know the Rays operate a little differently. That roster above is significantly more offensive, but you're basically netting 1.7 fWAR on current year production with the Vlad/Busch (5.6 v 2.6) and Nico/Lowe swaps (3.5 v 2.2). Kelly is an upgrade but a separate conversation, as is Castillo Do we have enough cash for this? Castillo comes in at $22m, Vlad is at $19m this year and will get a raise, let's call those two $45m. Lowe with that player option is $10m, Kelly is probably around there as well. So there's $65m less Nico's $10m and we've picked up one starter and no bullpen help. Offensive is....4ish wins better, starters are marginally better (2.3 fWAR for Castillo this year), but you're basically capped out, needing to extend Vlad and down whatever prospects you need to throw in addition to Nico and Busch.

Yeah the easier way to say it is that Bellinger is the default starter if any of Happ, PCA, new elite bat, Suzuki, or Busch went down with an injury. Having said that, if you told him that was his role going forward, he might rethink his option decision. But if he's going to be here, might as well lean on his versatility.

In a hypothetical world where everyone has perfect health (which would be worst case scenario for Cody and his playing time), you could still give him 15 starts in left, 15 starts in center, 15 starts in right, 15 starts to give Busch a day off, 15 starts to give Nico a day off (Busch at second), 15 starts at DH. That's 90 starts, can make it 120 by bumping those all up to 20. Nico moving to short to give Dansby time off (and Busch to second, Bellinger to first) is another option. Of course, this is a world where guys like Caissie, Shaw, etc don't exist. But those guys become that much more tradable with a Bellinger opt in and a big offensive signing.

Yeah makes sense, I just think that, unfortunately, 'integrate' means writing their name in ink in the lineup for three months. I'm less excited about a Brandon Lowe situation, especially on a competing team, because then there's added pressure for Shaw and there's added pressure for Counsell to lean on the reliable 2 fWAR dude. Injuries happen, that's what got PCA his shot. But I think I'm more willing to work around a potential Matt Shaw sized black hole at the bottom of the order for a couple months, especially in a world where Nico is traded for a significant upgrade and he's not following a .440 OPS catcher. That said, this was probably an unnecessary devil's advocate on my part because ultimately just give me Nico Hoerner and his 3-4 wins for the next two years.

Cody becomes the 4th outfielder, essentially, in any of these scenarios. Vlad/Rooker: Vlad is full time DH, you live with Seiya in right (metrics aren't that bad), Cody backs up all three outfield positions, backs up Busch, and occasionally you let Busch play second and Bellinger first if you want a bunch of lefties Tucker: Tucker is full time RF, Seiya is DH, Cody does the same thing as above

Looking through the top rookies this year, Jackson Merrill got zero games in AAA, had a wRC in the low 90s through May, then blew up. Jackson Chourio got 6 games in AAA at the end of last year, had a terrible April and May, then blew up Austin Wells got 33 games in AAA last year, 20 games in the majors last year (decent), had a bad April and May, and then blew up Colton Cowser got 87 games in AAA last year, a brutal 26 games in the majors last year, a very good April, bad May, and then mostly good the rest of the year. Nothing definitive here, but haven't seen someone in a while that comes up and immediately establishes themselves, regardless of the amount of time in AAA.

Eh....I think there's a decent counterargument that dudes are just going to struggle for a block of games when they reach the majors and PCAs month in AAA this year didn't really do anything to his development one way or the other. Totally on board with the argument that a team aiming for 90+ wins shouldn't count on a prospect from the jump, especially when you have established and reliable value there. But don't think there's some foolproof way to avoid that initial adjustment period, and you just hope when we bring up a guy and he works through it you don't have, hypothetically, historically bad catching production and nothing from shortstop or third base.

Would certainly live in really any world where Soto is a Cub, but I think any trade with Seattle for a major league established pitcher has to include premium offense (or at least premium offensive potential) going the other way. They're going to miss the playoffs not because of the rotation, but because of the offense. Would think they would prefer the Shaw/Caissie/Alcantara's of the world vs a glove first guy. And in a win now world (beaten by Bertz above), give me Nico's surefire production over Shaw's potential if we're making clear upgrades in Soto and the rotation.

Plus Busch wasn't 'blocked' in the Dodgers organization if they truly considered him a second baseman. Gavin Lux put up a decent but by no means good year in 2022 and then missed all of 2023 with an injury. Busch could have definitely fought for that job if they thought he was consistently playable there. Lux was their 9 hitter on opening day and has never had good defensive metrics. In a world without Nico (presumably with Shaw), I'm fine putting Busch there occasionally to protect Shaw early on or in situations TT talked about. But downgrading at first base just to downgrade at second (with the upside of whatever Hoerner gets you offsetting that) doesn't appeal to me.

fully aware this is basically me here:

Busch was graded at 30 for fielding going into this year on the back of playing mostly second base in the minors. The glass half full side of things can point to his improvements and say he's just a drastically better fielder now, the half empty view is that first base is truly that much of a step down, difficulty wise, from a middle infield position, and whatever offensive upgrade you'd get there (depends on the metric: wOBA and wRC look to be substantial step ups, xwOBA not so much) would be given away (and maybe then some) defensively. I don't know. I feel a lot better about Bellinger than I did a month ago but still prefer all of Happ, PCA, Suzuki, Busch, and Hoerner over him as consistent options. We've tried, and failed, two years in a row to have the offensive plan be 'good all over, great nowhere'....but if Bellinger opts in maybe it's the best route and then you just go sign two of Flaherty/Burnes/Eovaldi and/or go prospects for pitching? Like, yeah, good but not great was the plan going into this year, but that was with us hoping on Morel at third and Madrigal in the opening day starting line up. Whereas Bellinger as your starting right fielder next year probably projects as your 8th best offensive starter. I'd still rather Bellinger opt out and we get creative on an elite bat. But $60m and a bunch of blocked prospects (behind an offense that's been 5th in fWAR in the second half) gets you at least 2 legitimate starters, some pen stability, and ideally a Carson Kelly. Steele/Shota/Mariners pitcher/Flaherty/Taillon with Assad/Brown/Horton there as support/amped up pen work is significantly improved over where we are now, and there's still plenty of money for the pen and a catcher after that.