The Cubs Are on Pace for Their Worst Rotation Ever
So far this season, Cubs starters rank 10th in WAR as a group. For a club hoping to win a tough Central division, that might be less than ideal. Still, it seems workable. Fine for a contending club.
Unfortunately for Chicago, 10th is not the rotation’s rank relative to other rotations — by that measure, they place 24th — but rather compared to other, individual starters. Stated differently: as a group, Cubs starters have been outperformed by nine major-league pitchers. That seems less workable. Less fine for a contending club.
Only six clubs (the Orioles, Padres, Rangers, Reds, Royals, and White Sox) have received less production from their rotation and none of them are threatening to win a championship this year. It’s true that the Cubs have some pretty good starters — Yu Darvish, Kyle Hendricks, Jon Lester, and Jose Quintana have all authored multiple above-average seasons — but Darvish has been hurt or pitched poorly, Hendricks and Quintana have been inconsistent, and Lester appears to be benefiting from a combination of luck and defense rather than his own skill. Mike Montgomery has been solid as a fill-in, but free-agent signee Tyler Chatwood has been a disaster, with nearly as many walks as strikeouts.
As it stands now, the Cubs are on pace to field their worst rotation ever. The graph below shows both the Cubs’ pace as well as their projections compared to full-season totals over the last 45 seasons.
The chart is actually misleadingly positive: two of the seasons (1981 and 1994) that the Cubs are projected to beat were shortened by strike. The 3.0 WAR the Cubs’ rotation currently possesses is the team’s lowest first-half total going back to at least 1974, and while the starter/reliever splits aren’t perfect before 1974, this might actually become the worst rotation by WAR in Cubs franchise history if they don’t improve in the second half. That’s really hard to believe given the talent level of the Cubs’ pitchers, but thus far, that’s where things stand.
There are several reasons one might be suspicious about these claims regarding the current rotation. The first is that the Cubs are actually good at preventing runs. By RA9-WAR, a version of WAR calculated with runs allowed instead of FIP, the club ranks 12th in baseball. That number accounts for defense, as well, and you could say it’s actually fine that the rotation has been bad because the team’s defense is very good. If the focus is on overall run-prevention — and it should be — then the rotation (with the assistance of the defense) has been about average. Add in a solid bullpen, and you have a club that’s among the top 10 in terms of run-prevention.
There’s also the distinction one might make between performance to date and expected rest-of-season performance. The former isn’t wholly predictive of the latter. After all, our projections put them 11th among MLB staffs with 5.0 WAR for the rest of the season. If the staff had pitched to that pace in the first half, they would have around seven wins right now, still in the bottom half of baseball but much better than where they are currently. That leads to the question of whether the Cubs’ projections are reasonable. In the table below, we see the Cubs’ starters pitching stats since the beginning of the 2017 season, as well as the projections for the rest of the year.
| Name | 2017-2018 IP | 2017-2018 ERA | Projected ERA | Difference | 2017-2018 FIP | Projected FIP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jose Quintana | 286.1 | 4.09 | 3.73 | 0.36 | 4.01 | 3.68 | 0.33 |
| Yu Darvish | 226.2 | 4.05 | 3.98 | 0.07 | 4.01 | 3.49 | 0.52 |
| Jon Lester | 292.1 | 3.66 | 3.97 | -0.31 | 4.19 | 3.99 | 0.20 |
| Kyle Hendricks | 250.0 | 3.42 | 3.61 | -0.19 | 4.18 | 4.06 | 0.12 |
| Mike Montgomery | 120.0 | 3.75 | 4.23 | -0.48 | 4.04 | 4.41 | -0.37 |
| Tyler Chatwood | 220.1 | 4.86 | 4.49 | 0.37 | 5.06 | 4.60 | 0.46 |
On the ERA side, the numbers overall even out pretty well. Hendricks, Lester, and Montgomery are ahead of the projected ERA, so maybe they can keep that going. Chatwood and Quintana are behind, meanwhile, with Darvish coming in about equal. Over on the FIP-side, every pitcher but Montgomery has a projected FIP lower than his recent track record. For the most part, the FIP and ERA end up pretty close together on the projections. If Cubs pitchers can hit their projections on the FIP portion, they might actually be able to beat their projections for ERA given the quality of the team’s defense. That’s the good news.
The bad news centers around three pitchers:
- Yu Darvish: The Cubs’ big free agent signing still hasn’t thrown off the mound since attempting a return from the disabled list on June 28 and hasn’t pitched in an MLB game since May 20.
- Tyler Chatwood: The Cubs’ smaller free-agent signing has recorded more walks and hit batters total than strikeouts, and he hasn’t gotten any better as the season’s wore on.
- Mike Montgomery: In his first five starts of the year, he put up a 1.21 ERA and 3.55 FIP. In his last four starts, though, his numbers haven’t been quite as good, with a 6.00 ERA and 5.10 FIP. Over his last two starts, he’s struck out just three batters.
The Cubs aren’t likely to receive definitive answers on any of the pitchers listed ahead of the trade deadline. They actually have to go beyond their current group within the first weeks after the All-Star break due to a doubleheader on Saturday. Luke Farrell is expected to make Monday’s start. Most of their previously strong farm system is either on the major-league team or playing for the Yankees (Gleyber Torres), Tigers (Jeimer Candelario), or in the White Sox’ system (Dylan Cease, Eloy Jimenez). The Cubs’ highest-ranked prospect on Eric Longenhagen and Kiley’s McDaniel’s updated prospect list is Aramis Ademan, a 19-year-old shortstop struggling to hit in High-A who doesn’t appear among the top-100 prospects anyway.
The Cubs don’t have the prospect firepower to make another Quintana-like trade, so any big deal would likely cost at least two contributing major-league pieces. Even that might not be enough for a pitcher like Jacob deGrom if he’s available. The Cubs’ rotation is likely to get better, either by means of positive regression or the addition of better depth. From GM Jed Hoyer:
“No matter what happens [with Darvish], we’re going to be trying to acquire pitching and try to acquire depth,” Hoyer said. “That’s our focus no matter what.”
The pitching options out there probably aren’t going to be great, but they might be better than what Chicago currently has. Nathan Eovaldi, Marco Estrada, Matt Harvey, and Lance Lynn probably fit the bill for the type of pitcher the Cubs should be targeting. The team, as presently constructed, is still a pretty big favorite for the NL Central even if the Brewers do make a big move at the trade deadline. If the team takes care of business against the Cardinals — against whom they play eight games in the next 10 days — they will enter August with even more secure footing in the division. The team might have a tough time trying to out-defend and out-mash their opponents in October, but even after a disastrous first half of starting pitching, the team is in good shape to get to the playoffs for the fourth straight season, a feat never before accomplished by the franchise.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
I’m curious what positive regression might come the Cubs’ way.
Consider 2018 BABIP vs. Career BABIP
Lester- .253 (2018) vs. .296 (career)
Hendricks- .273 vs. .274
Quintana- .276 vs. .302
Montgomery- .274 vs. 270
Chatwood- .297 vs. .300
Darvish- .293 vs. .292
Every starter, with the exception of Darvish, has outperformed (some by a lot) their xFIP.
Positive regression assuming that the current underlying FIP stats aren’t the “true” talent level of the pitchers mentioned. The BABIP will probably regress the other way, true.
Given the defense, pitchers currently on the Cubs should expect a better BABIP than their career averages.
Quintana, save for 2 blow ups against Atlanta(one which shouldn’t have been played) has actually pitched well, hopefully there are no more snow-games he pitches in.
Yeah Hendricks hasn’t pitched to the great #2 status we’ve grown accustomed to over the last several years, but he has been a solid contributor this year and is hardly a cause for concern.
Lester, I can buy actual regression happening unfortunately, landing his era somewhere around a 3.2-3.5.
Chatwood… I can only hope he gets skipped a few turns to reset and figure these walks out. He alone is putting a major drain on the collective ‘stats’ for the team, with his sky high walk rate.
If, and it is a big IF for now, Darvish can come back and contribute effectively this year, the team shouldn’t finish anywhere near the bottom.
There should be overall positive regression based on the hopeful Chatwood skips/corrections alone.
Walks and control have always been the problem for Chatwood…he’s got great “stuff” but has trouble locating. I’m afraid rest isn’t going to change that.
By no means did I ever mean or say rest for Chatwood. I meant time to work on his control separate from games that count. Well aware walks were always an issue, but hes making Daniel Cabrera look like Dan Haren., that has to be corrected.
Hendricks has been trying to work out the kinks all year. Lester has been doing it with smoke and mirrors. Q has been the most consistent. Chatwood is Chatwooding. And no one has any idea what expect from Darvish. Not a lot if confidence right now in the playoff rotation.
Really, the offense needs to live up to it’s billing (which is realistic, timeline wise) and the bullpen needs to bullpen.
Any thoughts on Smyly and Chavez?
Smyly is worth discussing but its still more likely than not that if he contributes this year it would be in the pen, not as a starter.
James Shields, by now pitching like a fairly reliable no. 3-4 starter, can no doubt be had from the crosstown White Sox for a prospect that will be nowhere as good as the one the White Sox had to send to San Diego to get him.
It took me a couple readthroughs to figure out what the “10th/26th” meant. I would have appreciated that being phrased a little clearer.
Note, though, I’m a west-coaster who hasn’t had morning coffee yet. So maybe I’m just not real perceptive right now.
I assumed the 10th was in ERA and it’s a type-o that just has to be corrected? Not sure what else they could be ranked in 10th in collectively? Because…and I might be missing something… they just aren’t 10th in WAR.
I just had my coffee. The whole lede is incredibly confusing.
The craziest part is that their pitching staff costs over $120M this season, which by itself is more expensive than 9 other opening day 25 man rosters!
“as a group, Cubs starters have been outperformed by nine major-league pitchers”
I’m having a really hard time understanding what this is supposed to mean. Does this mean that the Cubs rotation has accumulated a lower WAR total in its innings than those nine individuals? Because “outperformed” isn’t really the right word for that — innings pitched have value too.
That’s exactly what its saying. Which I’m with you, doesn’t make a ton of sense. To say Corbin has been more valuable than the entire Cubs pitching staff…Just doesn’t sound logical.
Agree. The WAR=value narrative only half-way through the season is somewhat sloppy and can be a bit misleading.
Yah, I had trouble parsing the first two paragraphs, and the first sentence of the third. I had to read it multiple times to understand his meaning, and then I still don’t understand how the Cubs rotation can rank 26th compared to other rotations and yet still 6 clubs have worse performing rotations.
Craig, I usually love your work, but that first 2.5 paragraphs needed a really good edit or rewrite.
LOL Cubs. How’s that dynasty working out?
Somehow you managed to screw up your name, i.e. Cubslol vs LOL Cubs.
Well, they’re still first in the division, so it isn’t too bad, really.
Great read. I wonder how much Willson Contreras’ pitch framing is contributing to this. He’s been near the bottom of the league since coming up.
Makes you wonder especially for Chatwood. How many less walks would he have with the best pitch framer?
Quintana’s walks are way up this year as well.
Contreras is a terrible catcher, but you clearly dont watch. Chatwood has no clue where any pitch will go. Most of the time his pitches that miss are nowhere near the zone.
I don’t watch any Cubs starts, because of MLB’s archaic and moronic blackout restrictions (I live in Iowa). So, no, I don’t see how bad Chatwood’s misses are.
I guess I figured someone making the money Chatwood makes would be ‘near’ the strike zone.
Somehow an all star
I will say this, common consensus says that framing has tightened, as in the difference between the best and worst is smaller then ever.
That said, it’s the weakest part of WC’s game. But I also think that if pitchers are not consistently hitting their spots (which they have not) it’s negligible.
My brain must have had a long week. I had to read those first two paragraphs like four times to figure out what was being said.
Guess they miss Jake Arrieta
haha, I wrote about this yesterday on truebluela. More the main idea of how weak their rotation has been, but that’s funny timing. Really good stuff here. I believe that the Cubs excellent offense and defense will get them far, but their pitching will really hurt them if it doesn’t improve. Still think they and the Dodgers are the best the NL has to offer.
So the discussion around the Cubs and/or Lester’s performance here this year has irritated me. It seems to be a pattern where most Fangraphs writers take the FIP, the xFIP, etc. way too much at face value and don’t look at any other of the many interesting stats that are available on this site.
Fangraphs seems to forget that while FIP takes real actions into account it is very much predictive in value. It is not real value. Taking FIP at face value blindly is how you come to wrong statistical conclusions over careers or seasons, like say drastically undervaluing Tom Glavine (career ERA- 86, career FIP- 94).
Now I am not an analyst. And the Cubs being a smart organization currently stocked with savvy veteran pitchers does not mean that they have not underperformed. They have. And the defense deserves a lot of credit for the difference between their FIP and RA9 difference. The problem for me at least is that the Cubs as an organization clearly know this and have taken advantage.
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=2&season=2018&month=0&season1=2018&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=3,d
The Cubs, in a time when the league’s batters have trended towards flyballs and homers, have one of the highest GB/FB ratio among starters in the league at 1.36. That’s 7th in the league. They have one of the lowest hard hit rates in the league at 22nd out of 30 teams. And we all know the Cubs have a great defensive infield poised to turn those GBs into outs.
Maybe I’m wrong and this is all just noise. Lester in particular does not fit the trendline with the rest of these stats I outlined. But simply assuming it is all luck or all defense seems to miss that there could be something more there.
The defense deserves most of the credit for the difference between FIP and RA9, but that doesn’t refute the fact that the pitching staff is lousy. Both can be true; the pitching staff isn’t very good and the defense is bailing them out.
If you’re arguing that the Cubs are trying to get their pitchers to induce groundballs at the expense of strikeouts, I’m not sure why they went out to sign Yu Darvish for a jillion dollars, or traded Eloy Jimenez for Quintana. And it isn’t working for Lester, who (as you note) is still putting the ball in the air.
I also strongly object to the idea that FIP isn’t about “real value”: It’s limiting the value to what the pitcher can control, which effectively isolates pitcher value. (xFIP, on the other hand, is a truly predictive measure)
It helps that BABIP is largely fielding-dependent and otherwise random for most pitchers (Greg Maddux obviously is an exception, among others). Jon Lester certainly isn’t an exception. Neither is Yu Darvish. Neither is Quintana.
My argument was not that FIP had no value. My argument was that FIP isn’t completely accurate to other things a pitcher has control of- namely pitching to weak or mediocre contact.
My point was more that something else is clearly happening, and that maybe that deserves a closer look rather than simply pointing at the leaderboard for FIP, and saying that the Cubs’ starters are bad.
Well after today’s debacle, in 2 starts post ASB (Hendricks and Lester) Cubs starters have combined for 7.2 IP, 16 H, 11 ER, 6 BB, 5 SO.
Lester’s ERA increased over half a run after today’s start. However, he was already having a rough July entering today’s game. 4.86 ERA, 5.61 FIP, 5.03 xFIP.
Such a tired argument and an incorrect one too. By xwOBA, Lester has outperformed by 48 points, Chatwood by 24, Hendricks by 34, Quintana by 14. Darvish has only outperformed by 1 point, and not coincidentally his FIP is almost identical to his ERA.
All together, the five main Cubs starter have a weighted average of 0.347 xwOBA in a league where the starters have averaged a 0.315 wOBA. Yikes.
I have always felt that team defense has been and will likely continue to be very underrated. When we get numbers like pitch framing figured out the numbers come out to big for most to undrstand or believe. But, everytime a team puts a truly superior defense on the field they can win a ton of games without much pitching like the 2018 cubs. They can also win more than they lose without much hitting either like the 2018 Rays.
Funny part is, I wrote an article on BleedCubbieBlue that the Cubs really shouldn’t focus to heavily on starting pitching and instead focus on the bullpen. Well they focused on the bullpen, and it’s not too shabby. But now, facing any one of the big three in the AL the Cubs will be lucky if they get out of the first six innings with only four runs scored.
Well you can take a glass half full approach or half empty.
Half full would go something like:
we know all 5 starting pitchers are capable of pitching better and have usually pitched better throughout their careers. And even with their abysmal performance to date the Cubs have had an excellent season. If 2 or 3 of them turn it around, this team can beat anyone.
The half empty would go something like:
This could be a wasted opportunity, with an elite offense and good bullpen, the decline in SP performance is going to keep this team from winning the world series and might shorten their dynasty window because of its cost and age.
I am an optimist, so I’m taking the half full approach.