Are the Cubs Underachieving?

All things being equal, the Chicago Cubs find themselves in a very good position at the moment. They’re three games ahead of the Cardinals and 2.5 ahead of the Brewers in the NL Central. And while 11 of their final 17 games feature either St. Louis or Milwaukee, our playoff odds give Chicago an 87.5% chance of qualifying for the postseason, with the club avoiding the Wild Card game in almost every scenario. Last year’s World Champions, it appears, will have an opportunity to defend their title.
Yet the season seems slightly disappointing. The Cubs are likely headed to 88-90 wins instead of the 95-96 for which they were projected at the beginning of year — and well short of the 103 victories they recorded last season when they clinched the division on September 15. Given the expectations, it’s fair to wonder not only if the Cubs are underachieving but also, further, if we could have seen this coming.
Heading into the season, the Cubs were projected for around 49 WAR. Simply adding that total to the 47 or so wins a replacement-level team should garner gives you 96 wins. Right now, the Cubs are “on pace” for 88 wins. The FanGraphs model calls for 89 wins because it integrates projections (which are generally strong for Cubs players). In either case, though, Chicago will almost certainly fall short of their preseason forecast.
Let’s try and figure out where those eight wins (or, really, seven wins because 10% of the season remains) went. We can start by simply consulting the BaseRuns standing, which indicate that the Cubs would have 82 (and not 79) wins right now if the sequencing of all their hits and homers and outs was more evenly distributed. So of those seven aforementioned wins, we can account for three of them right away — unless we somehow believe that this Cubs team, composed mostly of players who won three playoff series last year, is fundamentally “unclutch,” that is. But that’s unlikely.
So, based on performance, the Cubs are at 81 wins instead of 85, essentially within 5% of their projection from the beginning of the season. That seems pretty good, not really the look of an underachiever.
To better understand how they’ve fallen short by four wins, let’s first take a look at the Cubs position players. We know, for example, that Kyle Schwarber’s season has been a disappointment. Jason Heyward has continued to struggle, while Ben Zobrist might be showing his age. Before we look to performance, let’s first check out playing time to see how injuries might be playing a factor. The table below shows prorated plate-appearance projections from our Depth Charts at the beginning of the season versus actual playing time through Tuesday.
| Name | Actual PA | Projected PA Prorated | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Addison Russell | 348 | 561 | -213 |
| Ben Zobrist | 434 | 548 | -114 |
| Jason Heyward | 429 | 517 | -88 |
| Miguel Montero | 112 | 199 | -87 |
| Willson Contreras | 383 | 436 | -53 |
| Kyle Schwarber | 443 | 484 | -41 |
| Albert Almora Jr. | 293 | 324 | -31 |
| Jon Jay | 375 | 368 | 7 |
| Kris Bryant | 599 | 561 | 38 |
| Anthony Rizzo | 623 | 567 | 56 |
| Javier Baez | 458 | 383 | 75 |
| Tommy La Stella | 132 | 56 | 76 |
| TOTAL | 4629 | 5004 | -375 |
Russell, Zobrist, Heyward, Montero, and Contreras have all played less than expected. Baez has assumed some of those plate appearances, though, while the Cubs two best players, Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo, have gotten more playing time than expected. In the end, most of the lost playing time has gone to Ian Happ, who has put up 1.6 WAR and 116 wRC+, leaving little lost in terms of expectations. Alex Avila has gotten nearly 100 plate appearances and put up an above-average hitting line, too, essentially negating Montero. So the effects of time lost to injury doesn’t seem huge.
What about performance, though? The table below shows projected and actual wOBA this season.
| Name | Actual wOBA | Projected wOBA | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kris Bryant | .392 | .375 | .017 |
| Anthony Rizzo | .385 | .384 | .001 |
| Willson Contreras | .362 | .331 | .031 |
| Tommy La Stella | .360 | .314 | .046 |
| Miguel Montero | .346 | .300 | .046 |
| Kyle Schwarber | .331 | .358 | -.027 |
| Jon Jay | .327 | .302 | .025 |
| Javier Baez | .323 | .315 | .008 |
| Albert Almora Jr. | .316 | .298 | .018 |
| Ben Zobrist | .311 | .341 | -.030 |
| Addison Russell | .304 | .318 | -.014 |
| Jason Heyward | .304 | .324 | -.020 |
| TOTAL | .341 | .337 | .004 |
The Cubs are actually outperforming their projections without including Happ and Avila, who have both done well. The team’s 107 wRC+ might not match up with last season’s 112, but that was never a reasonable expectation. Maybe that four-point boost from the projections is taken away by improved offense overall, but the Cubs on offense have performed as expected.
So what about overall value, with WAR? Here are the prorated projections and the value thus far.
| Name | WAR | Projected WAR Prorated | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kris Bryant | 5.8 | 5.0 | 0.8 |
| Anthony Rizzo | 4.0 | 4.1 | -0.1 |
| Willson Contreras | 2.9 | 2.2 | 0.7 |
| Javier Baez | 1.9 | 1.3 | 0.6 |
| Kyle Schwarber | 1.3 | 2.2 | -0.9 |
| Jon Jay | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.9 |
| Addison Russell | 1.2 | 3.1 | -1.9 |
| Ben Zobrist | 0.7 | 2.3 | -1.6 |
| Jason Heyward | 0.7 | 2.6 | -1.9 |
| Tommy La Stella | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.5 |
| Albert Almora Jr. | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Miguel Montero | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
| TOTAL | 21.2 | 24.1 | -2.9 |
By this measure, the Cubs are down nearly three wins. Add in the 2.3 WAR from Ian Happ and Alex Avila, though, and it’s basically a wash. Yes, they’ve accrued over 10 WAR less than last year’s team, but that 2016 version of the club recorded defensive numbers that were due for regression and also lost nearly five wins in the person of Dexter Fowler.
The conclusion from this? On the position-player side, the team isn’t underachieving at all. In fact, they’re meeting fairly lofty expectations despite down years from Schwarber, Zobrist, Heyward, and Russell.
If the position-player side isn’t doing worse than expected, then it must be the pitching. Before addressing the starters, I would note that the bullpen has underperformed by about a win and a half this season from their projected five WAR in April. However, their Winning Percentage Added (WPA) is above 4.0, so any issues the Cubs have had with the bullpen haven’t really been felt by their record.
As for the starters, it hasn’t been a great year for the group as a whole. Here are the inning projections and actual totals for pitchers projected to start for the Cubs this year.
| Name | IP | Projected IP Prorated | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Arrieta | 160.1 | 173 | -13 |
| Jon Lester | 159.1 | 186 | -27 |
| Kyle Hendricks | 121.0 | 153 | -32 |
| John Lackey | 155.0 | 165 | -10 |
| Brett Anderson | 22.0 | 82 | -60 |
| Mike Montgomery | 116.1 | 93 | 23 |
| Eddie Butler | 54.2 | 49 | 5 |
| TOTAL | 788.2 | 901 | -112.1 |
We have an innings void here. A decent amount of it has been filled by Jose Quintana, though, who’s pitched 65 innings for the Cubs. We still end up with a 50-inning gap even after accounting for innings that went from their better pitchers (Jon Lester and Kyle Hendricks) to starters who aren’t as good (Mike Montgomery and Eddie Butler). This is likely part of the problem.
Moving on, we find that Cubs starters simply haven’t performed as well as last season. Here are the team’s main four starters entering the season. I’ve included their projected versus actual ERAs and FIPs.
| Name | ERA | Proj. ERA | Diff | FIP | Proj. FIP | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Arrieta | 3.48 | 3.28 | 0.20 | 3.99 | 3.46 | 0.53 |
| Jon Lester | 4.35 | 3.25 | 1.10 | 3.99 | 3.38 | 0.61 |
| Kyle Hendricks | 3.35 | 3.46 | -0.11 | 4.14 | 3.63 | 0.51 |
| John Lackey | 4.65 | 3.74 | 0.91 | 5.25 | 3.87 | 1.38 |
Increased offense might account for one-third of the ERA bump and one-fourth of the FIP bump, but these starters simply haven’t performed as well as projected. In terms of WAR, it doesn’t come out great.
| Name | WAR | Projected WAR Prorated | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Arrieta | 2.6 | 3.5 | -0.9 |
| Jon Lester | 2.5 | 4.0 | -1.5 |
| Kyle Hendricks | 1.8 | 2.8 | -1.0 |
| John Lackey | 0.5 | 2.6 | -2.1 |
| Brett Anderson | 0.2 | 1.1 | -0.9 |
| Mike Montgomery | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.1 |
| Eddie Butler | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| TOTAL | 9.2 | 15 | -5.8 |
Brett Anderson obviously didn’t work out, but the much needed trade for Jose Quintana and his 1.2 WAR wipe out Anderson easily. It’s the rest of the rotation, the pitchers who guided the Cubs last year, who have all fallen off. There’s your four other wins right there. It’s in the rotation.
Does that mean they are underachieving? Well, they aren’t doing as well as expected, but a handful of less-than-stellar pitching performances doesn’t exactly equal a call for an entire team of underachievers. The table below shows innings leaders from 2015-2016, including postseason.
| IP | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | David Price | 477.0 |
| 2 | Corey Kluber | 471.1 |
| 3 | Max Scherzer | 469.0 |
| 4 | Jake Arrieta | 468.1 |
| 5 | Johnny Cueto | 464.2 |
| 6 | Madison Bumgarner | 459.0 |
| 7 | Jon Lester | 457.1 |
| 8 | Chris Sale | 435.1 |
| 9 | Cole Hamels | 429.2 |
| 10 | John Lackey | 429.2 |
| 11 | Clayton Kershaw | 419.2 |
| 12 | Jeff Samardzija | 419.1 |
| 13 | Edinson Volquez | 418.1 |
| 14 | Jose Quintana | 414.1 |
| 15 | Dallas Keuchel | 414.0 |
| 16 | Chris Archer | 413.1 |
| 17 | Kyle Hendricks | 404.0 |
The Cubs have had very good luck the last two seasons in terms of pitcher health and effectiveness. We can’t say for sure that the team is paying the price for that luck this season, but John Lackey is 38 years old, Jon Lester is 33, and neither Jake Arrieta nor Kyle Hendricks had pitched a full season in the majors before 2015. That all four of them experienced a decline in performance this season is probably an anomaly, just as all four staying healthy and effective for all of 2015 and 2016 is as well. (Lackey’s 2015 season was with the Cardinals.)
Expecting the Cubs to exceed 100 wins again was unreasonable. Expecting a 95-win season might have been more possible, but even a few weak spots (in the rotation, for example) can pretty easily shave off wins in a season. The Cubs haven’t really underachieved, though. Their offense has been easily above average. Their defense has been pretty good, and their bullpen has done well enough. Their starting pitching has had experienced some bad luck, and even a trade for Jose Quintana can’t fix all of that. The Cubs are a good team that’s played well this season despite a slow start. Assuming they close out the year like they should and win the division, the year should be viewed as a successful one, even if they haven’t won as many games as expected or fail to repeat as champions.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
On the wOBA comparison chart, is the total team and individual difference column weighted based on PAs for each player actual vs. projected? I’m thinking for example that Montero was better than expected but also played less, so his positive contribution was limited.
it is weighted by PA so players like Montero wouldn’t have too much influence.
I’ve read that there is no such thing as a player being “clutch” — no statistically significant evidence, anyway. But I’ve suspected the Cubs’ offense has been afflicted all season (and in 2016) by poor situational hitting, such as swinging for the fence and striking out with a man on 3rd and one out. (I’m sure some statheads would object to that example and not classify that as a poor at bat.) Nonetheless, is there a metric to quantify so-called poor situational hitting? Maybe that is the BaseRuns metric?
I think that’s an overbroad statement. It may exist, but the sample required is large enough that you can’t say that even an entire season of clutch hitting by a team or player would suggest a future season(s) of clutch hitting.
I mean, they do have people with very long careers who were consistently positive in their clutch scores, which would either indicate an issue with the metric or that there is a skill there that other players lack:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=3&season=2017&month=0&season1=1871&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=12,d
I’m a little skeptical myself, because the gut test says that a number that rates Mr Clutchey McClutcherson himself (David Ortiz) as negative bears more review. Or we’re all just biased because he did it on the big stages 🙂
Yeah, I’m a bit skeptical that there is no such thing as “clutch” too. With the Cubs, though, I just see so many poor at bats in high leverage spots. Maddon talks about this a lot with Javy Baez. Seems like Kris Bryant should have 175 RBIs per season. Etc. Verducci’s book about the Cubs states they signed Zobrist and Heyward at least in part so the lineup would have a couple of solid situational hitters.
There was a conversation in a recent clutch-based article (I may have been chatting with you, actually) and one user hypothesized that many elite players may have poor clutch scores because it is in relation to their non-clutch performance. In other words, elite players may be more likely to look “bad” in clutch situations because they are so damn good the rest of the time.
Now I’m not sure how clutch is determined–I’ve read the glossaries for WPA / LI / Clutch so many times–but the rationale certainly seems possible.
I was one of the people espousing something like this, although I don’t think I was the one who came up with this theory.
I think the latest discussion is here:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-one-stain-on-kris-bryants-record/
But here’s a summary–
“Clutch” appears to be a weird and not-useful statistic. Bad players repeatedly wind up near the top of the clutch leaderboards–guys like Alcides Escobar–while really good players wind up at the bottom. There are a few possible reasons for this.
One is likely what dtpollitt mentioned–that the overall performance forms the denominator, and the clutch performance is the numerator, leading to some crazy overestimations of clutchness in guys like Alcides Escobar.
The other is that “clutch” is actually indicating that you’re vulnerable to a shift. With runners on, you might not be able to shift as heavily, meaning that the “clutch” statistic really means “you have a massive weakness without runners on that ceases to be a weakness with runners on.”
A third is that when you’re a good player and there is a runner in scoring position, you get Andrew Miller or Chris Devenski to come in and bail the starting pitcher out of a jam. That is to say, when you are really good and you have a chance to pile up RBIs, you suddenly get a fresh pitcher to punish you. And so clutch is quite likely a selection artifact, where the best players are placed in much more difficult situations in clutch situations than the worse ones.
There are issues people have raised (maybe even me) that I don’t remember). All this is to say, “clutch” probably has very little to do with being “clutch” as we think of it and might not adequately capture your contribution to the team either.
They’ve certainly been frustrating to watch.
1908.
People think this still works, less than a year after the Cubs won the Series?
You can make a theory to explain anything. In this case, the Cubs only win the WS in years when a fat guy is elected president.
From watching them this year it’s the pitching that has hurt them and IMO their RPs have pitched worse than their starters. If they have a lead in a close game after the 6th I start to sweat when Rodon, Uehera and even Edwards (who has been combustible at times) enter the game. Heck even Davis, despite his unblemished saves record, has looked shaky more often than not. He’s certainly not the same pitcher as he was in KC.
Epstein is clueless about relief pitching, and honestly pitching in general. If he had a clue, Epstein wouldn’t have traded one of the top prospects in baseball for a rental closer. Bullpen will be much worse next year too
I think it is generally agreed upon that while Theo likely overpaid significantly for Chapman last year, there were very few positions in that roster from which an upgrade pushed them over the edge. The trading away of Gleyber was softened at the time because (1) RP was that lone roster hole, (2) we still had Eloy and others in the farm, and (3) he wasn’t going to see Wrigley anytime soon with Baez / Russell / Zobs / Bryant / Happ around.
>he wasn’t going to see Wrigley anytime soon with Baez / Russell / Zobs / Bryant / Happ around.
This argument is a very popular one, and it always confuses me. The only way he’d be blocked is if he weren’t better than their options. He’s a better prospect than Happ, Baez isn’t that great, Zobrist is getting up there in age. If he were still with the Cubs, they’d find a spot for him to play.
Let’s take it piece by piece then:
Bryant – we can probably move on
Zobs – pre-2017, he’s signed for 3 more years, Theo signed him for versatility, plate discipline, and above average, if declining defense. I don’t think Torres is going to usurp him
Baez – Having the best offensive year of his career, gonna end with a 2.5-ish fWAR season
Russell – Worse offensive year of his career, plagued by foot injury. That said, his DRS since 2015 @ SS is 3rd behind only Simmons and Crawford (69/45/44), and his UZR/150 is 4th–and that’s with about a thousand less innings logged.
Happ – Currently running a wRC+ 114 in his first season, gonna end with a 2.0-ish fWAR season
I just don’t see where Torres gets playing time in 2017 on the Cubs. He was in A ball for the Cubs last year, and he’s only 20 years of age. Happ isn’t a slouch–he was the 9th overall selection in the 2015 draft. Perhaps Happ doesn’t get called up, or the Cubs don’t sign Jon Jay. Either way, the organization was flush with middle infielders and he didn’t have a logical spot to start the 2017 season.
i guess i didn’t really make my point correctly. i don’t mean to say he’s better than a bunch of their options(though i think in the future he’d absolutely be better than baez and zobrist, and probably happ). i just mean the whole idea that a player is “blocked” is wrong. if he were performing at a higher level than what they were getting, he’d be in the starting lineup. bellinger was blocked too, but then injuries happened, he came up and dominated, so they let him stay.
Torres might be better than happ and baez long term but the cubs window to win is now and torres isnt ready before late 18 if not 19.
I’m still not sure if the trade was good as a slightly
Worse closer might have done the job too and while it worked out for the cubs you should never judge a move based on outcome in hindsight but by probability at the time.
However I think theo sensed a historical chance and realized that 2016 might be the best chance. In theory the clubs window is super
long and the hitters are staying but the pitching was going to get more shaky with lester and lackey aging, arrieta going to free agency and hendricks regressing from cy pitcher to a solid pitcher.
Theo felt the time was now and not 2018 or 2019
It seemed obvious going into 2017 that a couple things wouldn’t replicate:
1 – Defense
2 – Controlling opposing BABIP
3 – Pitcher health
The 2016 Cubs owned the highest team defensive score and UZR/150 of any team in the last three years. This year’s team is very good (top third), but last year was special. Related, last year’s opposing BABIP was the lowest since 1982, whereas this year’s is .030 higher.
The big thing to me is pitcher health. I think Theo’s MO is pretty clear when it comes to pitchers–he likes to sign FA veterans with durable arms (who doesn’t), then supplements it with farm and waiver guys who can go SP/RP. Both Lester’s last two starts post-DL stint and Quintana’s last month are good indicators of health. Let’s see how Jake’s hammy feels and we shall see. It’ll be interesting to see what rotation he puts together in the off-season. Lester / Quintana / Hendricks, but then the farm is pretty barren.
RIP David Price
As a Cubs fan, the problem isn’t so much the cumulative WAR or Pythagorean W/L – but rather the number of poor seasons by individual position players and bad situational hitting. It’s been tough to watch at times (especially compared to last season).
I used to have the cubs as my favorite NL team but since i found out their owner is trump supporter, i root for their failure
The family are longtime Republican donors. FWIW, they spent a lot of money against Trump in the primaries before backing him in the general election. Trump famously said the Rickettses were running the team very poorly just months before they broke the 108-year-old streak.
Letting your politics interfere with your enjoyment of baseball (or a specific team) is sad…
The Ricketts family consists of a few brothers and one sister. All three of the male siblings are conservatives, yes. But their sister (and co-owner of the Cubs), Laura Ricketts and her wife are both big Democratic boosters. So they have people on both sides.
My dad voted for Trump. I dislike 45 greatly. I still love and respect my dad and go to him for advice. I even respect his political acumen. It’s called maturity. I also talk to Trump in a respectful manner to find out why he appeals to people. Try to understand different points of views. You’ll enjoy more things.
*talk to Trump ‘supporters’ in a…
The odds stuff, while even slightly informative need to be re-done. Cubs, w/ 11 of their final 17 against MIL or STL are 87.5% fav’s to win the division? And…if St. Louis wins 2 of 3 this weekend, they’re what with a 1 game lead? 50% chance? If you’re within 3 games w/ 11 games left against teams fighting for the same spot, you can’t be 87% fav’s w/ a almost zero chance of dropping to the WC. It’s mis-representative of the sport as a whole. To me, 87% chance is a lock, Cubs have been mediocre to above average all season. They are the furthest from a lock left in MLB to win the division.
Each team has 16 games left as of your post. The magic # is 14.
If the cubs go 8-8 ROS, one of the 2 would need to go 12-4 to win division.
And keep in mind, the Cards and Brewers close the season with a 3 game series, so one of them will lose at least 2 games.
So yeah, a lot has to go right for one of those two.