2015: The Back To The Future Season

[ChuckD]

Also of note from that article is how godawful Cubs pitchers have been at hitting. With Arrieta, Wood and Hammel in the rotation to start the year I expected they'd be better than average. But they're next to last in the NL.

Bring on the Designated Vogelbach, please.

Can ChuckD tell us how much different the team's overall offensive numbers would be if the Cubs were just middle of the pack in pitcher offense?

This is overly simplistic, but I can't imagine it'd make an enormous difference. The Cubs' pitchers have been on base 15 times (11 singles, 2 doubles, 2 walks). Give them the median OBP among NL pitchers and that would jump to 21 times on base. So an extra 6 times on base means, what, potentially a run or two? That'd be nice but it wouldn't turn the Cubs into a top-10 offense or anything.

It's tough because there are direct effects (if those hits occur with runners on, then they drive the runners in) and indirect effects (the hit increases the run expectancy of the rest of the inning by adding runners and giving the rest of the order an opportunity to hit with men on/fewer outs).

I can tell you that the direct effects based upon how many runners were on when the Cubs pitchers' ABs have occurred and the league averages among non-Cubs pitchers suggest they've been shorted by somewhere between 3.5 and 4.25 runs depending on how you want to munge the numbers (~3.5 if you assume all singles, ~4.25 if we break out those hits in to expected XBH and apply them proportionally across the different ROB situations).

In terms of indirect effects, I'd just say use .75 runs/hit. It depends on how many outs there were at the AB in question and I don't feel like breaking it out given the sample sizes we're talking about. So, maybe another 4.5 runs lost via cutting short innings/rallies.

So, we're at somewhere between 8 and 8.75. This basically lines up with FanGraph's WPA for the Cubs pitchers compared to league average -- they have them about .82 wins via WPA short if you calculate the average among other NL teams.

If you can extrapolate that across a full season, then you're looking at ~22 runs lost to the Cubs pitchers hitting compared to a staff of average hitters -- a little over two wins using the 10 runs / win rule of thumb.

But then you also have other indirect effects to consider which would offset that number. For instance, maybe Ross is getting so many more walks than usual because pitchers have no incentive to pitch to him with Lester due up behind him. If he is, then the Run Expectancy is artificially inflated for Lester's ABs compared to a league avg pitcher.

TL:DR; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[thehawk]

Another national baseball writer responds to Baseball Thought Leader Fuzzbeed Eli.

It's June 15, which means it's probably too early to do any "If the playoffs were to start today" exercises. But guess what. We're doing it anyway: If the playoffs were to start today, the two teams that strike out the most would both make the playoffs. One is the Astros, who lead the AL West. The other is the Cubs, who occupy the National League's second wild-card spot. Both of those teams have fanned just short of 25 percent of the time.

The Cubs' no-contact ways don't end there, either. The North Siders also own baseball's third-highest walk rate, drawing free passes 9 percent of the time. Combine those two numbers and you have a team that ends plate appearances without making contact more than one-third of the time — the highest mark in the majors.

That approach carries with it a hidden benefit: On the way to all of those strikeouts and walks, the Cubbies have worked an inordinate number of deep counts. According to ESPN research, they've worked the count to 3-2 a total of 358 times this season, also the highest such total in MLB. Factor in pitchers hitting — the Jon Lester–led Cubs are the second-worst group of pitcher-hitters in the NL — and all of those full counts become even more impressive.

The leader of the no-contact brigade is Kris Bryant. The phenom third baseman has struck out in 29.7 percent, and walked in 14 percent, of his plate appearances this season. That's right in line with his minor league numbers, including a 274-plate-appearance stint at Triple-A last year that saw him strike out or walk 41 percent of the time. Other regulars with lofty no-contact numbers include Addison Russell (38.9 percent, though he's also striking out four and a half times more often than he's walking), Miguel Montero (36.1 percent), Dexter Fowler (31.4 percent), and the currently injured Jorge Soler (39.4 percent).

Outside of producing some slow and occasionally tedious baseball, all of these pitches tire out opposing starters and get the Cubs to opposing bullpens more quickly. Even in an era when many teams trot out multiple relievers who can touch the high 90s with their fastballs, consistently facing fourth-tier bullpen arms in the fifth and sixth innings will generally produce positive results.

From their pitching staff ranking among the game's top strikeout machines to the simple fact that they have more talent now with Bryant, Montero, Russell, Lester, and additional new arrivals, there are plenty of other reasons why the Cubs are a much better team in 2015 than they were in 2014. But if you're looking for the kind of subtle advantage that could raise a team to another plane of success, much like the '90 Yankees and the '00s Red Sox, it's Chicago's ability to keep grinding out at-bats. If you see a pitcher with an exasperated look on his face this season, there's a decent chance it's because he's trying to navigate the very frustrating — and very effective, once you strip out their horrendous-hitting pitchers — Cubs lineup.

This will also leave managers muttering if they have to face the Cubs in a playoff series .

[SKO]

Also of note from that article is how godawful Cubs pitchers have been at hitting. With Arrieta, Wood and Hammel in the rotation to start the year I expected they'd be better than average. But they're next to last in the NL.

Bring on the Designated Vogelbach, please.

Can ChuckD tell us how much different the team's overall offensive numbers would be if the Cubs were just middle of the pack in pitcher offense?

This is overly simplistic, but I can't imagine it'd make an enormous difference. The Cubs' pitchers have been on base 15 times (11 singles, 2 doubles, 2 walks). Give them the median OBP among NL pitchers and that would jump to 21 times on base. So an extra 6 times on base means, what, potentially a run or two? That'd be nice but it wouldn't turn the Cubs into a top-10 offense or anything.

It's tough because there are direct effects (if those hits occur with runners on, then they drive the runners in) and indirect effects (the hit increases the run expectancy of the rest of the inning by adding runners and giving the rest of the order an opportunity to hit with men on/fewer outs).

I can tell you that the direct effects based upon how many runners were on when the Cubs pitchers' ABs have occurred and the league averages among non-Cubs pitchers suggest they've been shorted by somewhere between 3.5 and 4.25 runs depending on how you want to munge the numbers (~3.5 if you assume all singles, ~4.25 if we break out those hits in to expected XBH and apply them proportionally across the different ROB situations).

In terms of indirect effects, I'd just say use .75 runs/hit. It depends on how many outs there were at the AB in question and I don't feel like breaking it out given the sample sizes we're talking about. So, maybe another 4.5 runs lost via cutting short innings/rallies.

So, we're at somewhere between 8 and 8.75. This basically lines up with FanGraph's WPA for the Cubs pitchers compared to league average -- they have them about .82 wins via WPA short if you calculate the average among other NL teams.

If you can extrapolate that across a full season, then you're looking at ~22 runs lost to the Cubs pitchers hitting compared to a staff of average hitters -- a little over two wins using the 10 runs / win rule of thumb.

But then you also have other indirect effects to consider which would offset that number. For instance, maybe Ross is getting so many more walks than usual because pitchers have no incentive to pitch to him with Lester due up behind him. If he is, then the Run Expectancy is artificially inflated for Lester's ABs compared to a league avg pitcher.

TL:DR; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is there a way to measure what would be kind of an expected win probability/runs added by a normal bench instead of the incredibly pathetic group the Cubs have trotted out there?

Right now the Cubs have OPS+ of 100 or better from their regular starters at 5/8 positions, with Fowler at 99, Russell at 95, and Starlin at 83. I feel like that's pretty good production from your starting eight. I know that different guys have been hot at different times but that's how it goes for every team. I feel like their less than stellar run production (most of this last week aside) could be attributed to two things: they've been abysmal with RISP, which seems like a bad luck thing that should standardize over the course of the season, and they've got an absolutely terrible bench. Just wondering how many more runs a league average bench (whatever that is) would have amounted to by this point.

To me this all still adds up to a team that seemingly should be scoring more runs than they have been for most of the season, and probably will be a run scoring leviathan that leaves all who encounter them shaken and bruised from the experience by the end of the year when Jorge and Schwarber are in the lineup regularly and Bryant goes off on a couple of home run tears that I'm 100% sure are coming.

[SKO]

That was fun

[ChuckD]

I hope over time that Cashner for Rizzo goes that way as well - certainly seems possible. 

Too late.

I don't think that deal for the Padres is embarrassing yet. 

They wouldn't do it again, I'm sure, but Cashner's still a good pitcher when healthy.

Bump.

[Saul Goodman]

Looking way, way ahead to the offseason, there's this from Jon Heyman:

Folks around the game are convinced the Cubs will sign a big free agent pitcher this winter. [David] Price is the obvious guy, thanks to his long connection to Cubs manager Joe Maddon. But Jordan Zimmermann, from tiny Auburndale, Wis. might enjoy Chicago and has been linked to the Cubs.

Assuming they sign one, who would you rather have?

[ChuckD]

Looking way, way ahead to the offseason, there's this from Jon Heyman:

Folks around the game are convinced the Cubs will sign a big free agent pitcher this winter. [David] Price is the obvious guy, thanks to his long connection to Cubs manager Joe Maddon. But Jordan Zimmermann, from tiny Auburndale, Wis. might enjoy Chicago and has been linked to the Cubs.

Assuming they sign one, who would you rather have?

Is Heyman saying that Zimmermann would like Chicago because he's a small town kid who's never experienced "big city" life?

Or that he'd like Chicago because it's 300 miles from where he grew up, even though there are two closer teams and Jordan was probably a Twins fan since that's the closest team and his last name is Zimmermann for chrissakes.

[Eli]

Looking way, way ahead to the offseason, there's this from Jon Heyman:

Folks around the game are convinced the Cubs will sign a big free agent pitcher this winter. [David] Price is the obvious guy, thanks to his long connection to Cubs manager Joe Maddon. But Jordan Zimmermann, from tiny Auburndale, Wis. might enjoy Chicago and has been linked to the Cubs.

Assuming they sign one, who would you rather have?

Tough call, because I think the two are closer in ability than people think. Price has a cleaner injury history and stronger track record, but Zimmermann has less mileage on his arm overall and will be cheaper.

But for the sake of discussion, I'd probably take the better, safer pitcher and that's Price. He's already starting to turn into a Cliff Lee-style crafty veteran lefty as he ages, which could help him maintain more value than Zimmermann.

[Slaky]

Looking way, way ahead to the offseason, there's this from Jon Heyman:

Folks around the game are convinced the Cubs will sign a big free agent pitcher this winter. [David] Price is the obvious guy, thanks to his long connection to Cubs manager Joe Maddon. But Jordan Zimmermann, from tiny Auburndale, Wis. might enjoy Chicago and has been linked to the Cubs.

Assuming they sign one, who would you rather have?

Is Heyman saying that Zimmermann would like Chicago because he's a small town kid who's never experienced "big city" life?

Or that he'd like Chicago because it's 300 miles from where he grew up, even though there are two closer teams and Jordan was probably a Twins fan since that's the closest team and his last name is Zimmermann for chrissakes.

He might enjoy Chicago because most people do

[SKO]

Looking way, way ahead to the offseason, there's this from Jon Heyman:

Folks around the game are convinced the Cubs will sign a big free agent pitcher this winter. [David] Price is the obvious guy, thanks to his long connection to Cubs manager Joe Maddon. But Jordan Zimmermann, from tiny Auburndale, Wis. might enjoy Chicago and has been linked to the Cubs.

Assuming they sign one, who would you rather have?

Is Heyman saying that Zimmermann would like Chicago because he's a small town kid who's never experienced "big city" life?

Or that he'd like Chicago because it's 300 miles from where he grew up, even though there are two closer teams and Jordan was probably a Twins fan since that's the closest team and his last name is Zimmermann for chrissakes.

He might enjoy Chicago because most people do

Well except for old white people from Iowa who are scared of being shot every two seconds JESUS CHRIST GRANDMA THERE'S A STARBUCKS AND A BARNES AND NOBLE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET I THINK WE'RE SAFE.

[Saul Goodman]

At least when Matt Szczur is 40 and still toiling away for some third-division club's Triple-A affiliate, he'll always have that homer off Kershaw to keep him warm at night.

[SKO]

God that was a good win. Hope Fowler is okay

[WTB...A RING FFS!!]

I've been a Cubs fan since '76 when I was 4 and would come home from pre-school and watch with my parents, so not quite as long as at least a few of you. At my 40th bday party after hearing/seeing what Epstein/Hoyer and crew were doing I bet my cousin $50 that we'd at least make the Series by 2017 and $100 that we'd win it the year after. I've seen a metric fuckton of bad Scrubbies teams and several good-really good teams, and after seeing this unpolished product I fully stick by my prediction. With how many players we have in diapers and a few avg ones and how well they're doing in 1-run/extra-innings games this team has HUGE balls and determination unlike anything we've seen in a while. I love this team, and will be extremely happy in the next few or so years to one night be on with the rest of you some October night, drunkenly mistyping/mispelling and crying in my drink because we FINALLY are at the top-of-the-heap. That and remembering all the family and friends that came before us that have passed on without having seen a Cubs team win it all. You think Chicago was a zoo last Monday after the Hawks won at home, it'll be nothing compared to the Cubs taking the Series.

[Eli]

I love this team, and will be extremely happy in the next few or so years to one night be on with the rest of you some October night, drunkenly mistyping/mispelling and crying in my drink because we FINALLY are at the top-of-the-heap.

You misspelled "misspelling." This is perfect. Stop by more, FFS.

[WTB...A RING FFS!!]

LOL, I will, and I'm drunk and take ALL responsibility for MISStyping/MISSpelling. Thank you for calling me out on my obvious idiocy.