Hairyducked Idiot
-
Posts
39,504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Hairyducked Idiot
-
Just realized that this means technically we are back up to 2 members of the 2016 team on the roster.
-
Just an extremely easy to understand, logical move. Clear upgrade at a position of need. Back of the napkin, he's like a one-win upgrade for a two-month period over what we have now, maybe a bit more. Seasonal leverage multiplies that by a bit, so it's worth a lot more than a generic win in the future.
-
Today is the 19th anniversary of the nomar trade. We're all so middle-aged.
-
Candelario would be a perfectly cromulent rental upgrade. I doubt the price would be that expensive as a pure rental. I obviously knew he used to be one of our prospects, but I had completely forgotten he did get a brief callup here I'm sure people will pitch a fit if the prospect appeared on some random list at some point.
-
The 2014/15 farm was one of ever assembled on the draft era. This farm is good, but like ordinary levels of good
-
This. I'm never clear on what "giving up on" a guy means. We aren't cutting him tomorrow. He's probably nothing in the majors because most prospects end up being nothing in the majors and once you start having question marks the odds only go down. But weird things happen and we have like 200 minor league roster spots.
-
I like PCA. Most prospects are going to fail and most MLB players are mid or worse by MLB standards
- 9 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- 2023 trade deadline
- christopher morel
- (and 1 more)
-
A little bit that doesn't mean it's not also true. I'm assuming this means I'm supposed to really like one or the other but I'm not even sure which. Morel has minimal value if he can't maintain the HR pace he's had in the majors through 600 PAs, which I suspect he can't. Madrigal is like the platonic ideal of a middle infielder who can just barely hit and field enough that he definitely belongs on an MLB roster in his prime but I don't think you're ever happy starting him.
-
They're backup infielders. You close your eyes and play eenie meanie minie moe.
-
That's just something sealions say. You've made many, many claims in this thread. Some of them I found pretty hilarious. Never once did I demand you dig up links and prove them. Because I either agreed or disagreed, I didn't need to be a Reddit Bro spamming "debate me" terms.
-
(it's worth noting that fWAR *does* include a reliever leverage component, it's just discounted heavily from their actual game-experienced leverage because they want to be predictive rather than descriptive of value) ((It's less worth noting but still funny that Fangraphs' midseason top prospects update had Horton as the 4th-best pitcher in the Cubs system rather than all of baseball, with a 45+ FV)
-
Literally typing the words "WAR undervalues relievers" into google would have given you quite a few such articles, if this were a good faith request. But it wasn't. It was the old internet trope of "argument by homework." Sealioning. If you *actually* wanted them. But you don't. What you wanted was to assign homework to me in the hopes that I would say no and you could make a post exactly like this.
-
I did prove it. You not understanding the proof is not the proof not existing. I don't need an article to prove it. I did it in a compound sentence. It wasn't a quote, it was simply the proof. Heck, I can do it in two words. "Leverage exists."
-
It's not predictive for most players because most players don't control when their turn in the lineup comes up or when their turn in the rotation comes up. Relievers, however, can be deployed specifically in high-leverage situations and thus your best few will consistently have a larger impact than naked WAR implies.
-
Whoever forced you to click on it and read it all should be ashamed of themselves.
-
No, you don't. If you know enough about baseball to know what WAR is, then you know what leverage is. At *best* you're pretending to not understand the concept because it doesn't benefit your argument at this moment. I hope that's what it is anyway...
-
Because in order to find those relievers, they've also cycled through a lot of bad relievers. Having someone you already know is good sidesteps that problem.
-
K. "Leverage exists and managers can choose when to use relievers." There, I just proved it.
-
and xFIP isn't exactly in love with Wicks either. The word "upside" is doing a *lot* of work in calling Wicks a No. 3 SP in the majors.
-
Using WAR underestimates the value of high-leverage relievers
-
If your farm system is "gutted" by trading one or two prospects, fire the entire organization and start over.
-
That's just wrong on a game theory level. The biggest difference in your odds of winning a World Series is in making the playoffs vs not making it. Being a slightly better team while you're in the playoffs doesn't have as big of an impact. It's the season-length analogy to the highest-leverage situations being tie games, not protecting leads.
-
It started with someone saying they wouldn't trade anyone in our top 10 for any closer, which was absurd. Then it got into the weeds of how good Horton is.
-
It's the "at this point in time" that's tripping me up. They're right on the tipping point between making and not making the playoffs. There's arguably never going to be a time where acquisitions have a higher leverage.
-
On the old Chicago Tribune boards in the early Hendry era, they were known as Nowacrats vs. Buildicans. I'm a big believer that having a quality pipeline of develped prospects is critical to long-term success. I just think the value is in the breadth and consistency of a system and in elite hitting prospects, not in every random Mash Mervis or Ben Brown that people get enamored with.
