Yes, the Cubs Really Are Contenders Now
In the wake of of the Jon Lester signing, we’ve had a spate of articles suggesting caution about the fortunes of the 2015 Chicago Cubs. After all, while Lester is a nice little pitcher, this is a team that won 73 games a year ago, and had Jeff Samardzija performing at Jon Lester levels for the first half of the year. Or, as our friend Rob Neyer put it over at JABO this morning:
In 2015? The Cubs will need a lotta luck to challenge the Cardinals and the Pirates.
In 2014, the Cubs went 73-89 and were outscored by nearly a hundred runs.
In 2014, Jason Hammel and Jeff Samardzija combined for 216 2/3 innings and a 3.14 FIP with the Cubs. Also in 2014, Jon Lester pitched 220 innings with a 2.46 ERA. Not exactly but essentially, Lester does little but replace what the Cubs lost when Hammel and Samardzija were mailed to Oakland last summer.
In the short term.
The Cubs have also acquired Miguel Montero. Now, Montero’s better than incumbent catcher Wellington Castillo, particularly if you believe in Baseball Prospectus’ pitch-framing metrics. But it’??s not like the Cubs just replaced Drew Butera with Buster Posey or something. Castillo’??s decent, Montero’??s pretty good.
In the short term, adding Lester and Montero makes the Cubs maybe two or three games better than they were last year. Or maybe I’m WAY OFF … and it’??s four or five games. Now tack on another four or five to account for the mystical powers of Joe Maddon. That still leaves them well short of scaring the Cardinals.
You Aren't a FanGraphs MemberIt looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:✓Ad-free browsing✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles✓Historical & platoon projections✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps✓One-click data exports✓Customizable player-page dashboards✓Dark & Classic site modes✓Weekly Members-only mailbag✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review✓Optional homepage photo removal✓Gift articles to non-members
While I retain my fondness for Rob as a person and a writer, I think he’s a little bit off here. I think the Cubs really are contenders in 2015 now, and I think I have the data to prove it.
First off, let me start with the annual reminder that you absolutely do not want to build a 2015 forecast by starting with a team’s 2014 record and adjusting up or down to account for offseason transactions. 2014 performances are not static, and they do not carry over from one year to the next, even if the names of the players remain the same. And even if the individual performances were identical, the effects of sequencing are so large as to cause significant swings in win-loss totals.
If you absolutely have to use data from only the prior year — you never do, but just for argument’s sake — you should use a team’s BaseRuns expected record, not the win-loss mark they actually finished with. BaseRuns strips a lot of noise out of the picture, and gives a you better baseline from which to start. The Cubs expected record in 2014, per BaseRuns? 79-83, six wins better than their actual record.
Yes, they were outscored by 93 runs, but their underlying performance suggests that with the sequencing noise stripped out, they were only outplayed by about 20 runs. The 2014 Cubs, even trading their best pitchers at midseason, played something like a .500 team, and if you just reconstructed the exact same individual performances, you should expect something closer to 80 wins than 70 wins. That’s what they’re adding onto, not their 73-89 record.
But even prior season BaseRuns is problematic, because single season performances are not very good predictors of the future. The Cubs performance last year was propped up by Jake Arrieta pitching like the best pitcher in baseball, and he probably won’t do that again. Chris Coghlan hit about as well as Justin Upton’s career numbers, and he probably won’t do that again either. Kyle Hendricks isn’t going to run another 2.46 ERA. Just like we have to account for the improvements, we have to account for regression too.
And that’s why you really want your baseline to be built on a projection system. One that takes into account multiple years of data, aging curves, and current depth charts. Kind of like the one we have here at FanGraphs, thanks to the integration of the Steamer forecasts. And if you look at the updated projections after adding Lester and Montero, as well as adding in half a season of Kris Bryant at third base, this is what the projected WAR totals for the National League teams currently look like.
There’s the Nationals and Cardinals at the top of the heap, and the Pirates sitting comfortably in third place, so no, the Cubs aren’t the favorites to win the NL Central right now. But note where Chicago lies on the spectrum. Fifth place, nearly tied with the Dodgers, ahead of the World Champion Giants. In a league where five teams make the postseason, a team with the fifth most projected WAR could probably be describes as a legitimate contender.
But it’s worth noting that team WAR is not really an ideal way to project team performance. It’s an okay shortcut, but there are nonlinear interactions between teammates and run environments that WAR misses, which is why our projected standings and playoff odds reports run off the BaseRuns calculations instead. And just this morning, David Appelman has added projected BaseRuns totals for 2015 to the standings page. So let’s look at those numbers instead.
There’s some changes in the middle — specifically, the Rockies move down a bit because of their run environment — but the top five remain the same. The Nationals and Cardinals still look like the best teams in the league, with the Pirates just behind them. But then, there are the Dodgers and Cubs in a virtual tie for fourth place with the Giants. Right now, those six teams look like the class of the National League, with a step down to the Marlins beginning the next tier.
Projections aren’t gospel, of course, and there’s plenty of room to quibble here or there with some of the forecasts. Steamer loves Kris Bryant, and you could reasonably argue that the projection there is too optimistic, given that we don’t know yet how he’ll hit big league pitching or what his glove at third base might be. The team probably won’t keep both Edwin Jackson and Travis Wood around as expensive rotation depth, so maybe some of those innings will go to reserves with even worse projections.
But then again, we could play that same game on the other side of the coin. Maybe Bryant gets called up sooner than we’re projecting, and gets 600 plate appearances instead of 300. Maybe 160 innings is too conservative an estimate for Jake Arrieta. Maybe the team won’t give 1,000 plate appearances to Arismendy Alcntara and Javier Baez if they’re performing as poorly as the projections think they might. They’ll probably find an outfielder better than Junior Lake, especially now that they’ve pushed in on the short-term.
As currently built, we have the Cubs as roughly an 84 win team, five wins better than their BaseRuns mark from last year. Is that really an unreasonably optimistic forecast, given that they won’t be trading Lester and Hammel away at midseason this time around, and the kids are probably more ready for prime time than they were a year ago?
Rob is right that you don’t want to overreact to a few big offseason additions, and he’s right that the Cardinals are still the class of the NL Central. But we’ve got the projected difference between the two at four wins, and the Cubs probably aren’t done yet. If the Cardinals aren’t feeling threatened by the Cubs last 24 hours, they should be. This isn’t a great team yet, but we’re in an era where we don’t really have great teams anymore; we just have a lot of pretty good ones. And right now, the Cubs look pretty close to being a pretty good team.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Dave, you are the best.
Big Cubs fan, huh?
Better to show you’re one of us now, than to join the oncoming bandwagon.
(The thought of a pink Cubs hat makes me want to puke)
That’s because you’re a self-loathing Cubs fan. Those pink hats indirectly finance the ability to sign guys like Jon Lester.
Wait ’til Lester gets a taste of the wind blowing out.
I think being a lefty playing in Fenway is adequate preparation for Wrigley with the wind blowing out.
Which team has the best starting rotation in the NL Central? The Cardinals? Cubs?
Cards, for now at least. Waino, Lynn, Wacha, Lackey, and whoever they use as the fifth guy should be better than the Cubs as currently constructed. If the Cubs make a trade and get another Ace, that could change things.
Waino: His elbow is becoming a problem more and more now. Not as good as he used to be.
Lynn: Has one good year on top of a few shitty ones prior.
Wacha: Overrated
Lackey: Probably their second best pitcher, lights out in the playoffs
The Cardinal’s rotation is not that good.
Crack analysis Jacob. Particularly enjoy the lack of thought, makes for an easy read.
Lance Lynn’s FIP- the past three years (i.e. his years as a starter): 91, 89, 92. So I guess two years ago was his good year when he put up a stellar 89 FIP-. Last year and three years ago, however, were the shitty ones with horrible FIP-s of 91 and 92. That means that an average starter must have a FIP- of EXACTLY 90. Anything better and you’re good, anything worse and you’re shitty.
I can do this too
Lester is he the motivated Lester of 2014 or the 4era Lester of 2012 and 1/2 of 2013. It seem he turned it on when the sox started talking contract?
Arrieta expectation is high is he the guy who wilted under pressure last time when expectations were high or 2014 cubs version when the cubs were out of contention at 1/4
Hendricks his stuff is mediocre. If he loses 1 or 2 mph what happens. He was always viewed as a potential no 5. Is he really better than that
Hummel he has been an adequate no 5 everywhere else he went
Woods Jackson were 2 of the worst sp in ml
You can’t just pose questions about everyone and use that as reasoning for why you shouldn’t believe in them. By the same token…
Lester: Changed his approach mid-2013, been lights out for 300 innings since
Arrieta: 2.83 SIERA in 2014 over large sample, and even a 3.6 SIERA in 2012 in 114.2 IP (despite 6.20 ERA, he had a ridiculous 57.2% strand rate that season). I don’t see a reason to expect that to happen again.
Hendricks: Why would you assume a 25 year old SP would lose 1-2 mph off an already 88 mph fastball? He’s serviceable and doesn’t walk anyone. We’ve seen that work many times before.
Hammel: Very solid (mid-3.00s) two of the last three years so that seems like a good estimate to me.
Dovif and Jacob must be first cousins..Hummel? I thought those were collectible statuettes?
This minute? The Reds, I’d say.
According to team pitch score, the Cubs. Which to me isn’t very suprising because last year the combination of Samardzija, Arrieta, Hammel, Wood, Jackson, Wada, & Hendricks was #3 in in the NL based on WAR.
http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=ALL&teamid=28
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=nl&qual=0&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0
Looks like the Reds but it might not last all offseason.
Cueto – Latos – Bailey – Leake – Simon or Cingrani
It’s pretty good, it’s a shame it will likely be broken up soon.
The Cubs won’t win 80 games next year.
Yes, you are right. They won’t win 80 games next year. They will win more than 80.
Or perhaps less; either way it will be very tough to hit that 80-win target exactly, when there are 162 other win totals they might finish with (or 163, with a one-game playoff!).
You know what? I’m going to go out on a limb and say they will win more than 4, but also lose more than 6. (#BoldSportsTakes) So that takes the range of options down to just 150!
Technically, even with a one-game playoff the range of possible win totals is only 163. Totals 0-162 are in play pre-playoff, so the only thing a playoff could add would be the chance of going 163-0. This would imply they were in a playoff with another 162-0 team, which is unlikely since the Cubs will play every other team in the NL at some point and every game has a maximum of one winner.
No, I specifically meant that I don’t think they’ll win as many as 80 games next year. I believe they’re farther away than it’s fashionable to suggest they are. Who am I? Nobody, really, but I disagree with all the fervor to anoint the Cubs contenders. A lot of their young bats are high bust rate guys (with admittedly high ceilings, too). I doubt either Hammel or Arrieta will be as good as they were last year. Lester’s a good pitcher but, for that contract, he’s not all that much better than a guy like Liriano. Rizzo’s very good. Castro is up and down. Montero’s not all that good anymore (90 wRC+ last year and, sure, he can frame but the numbers don’t like the rest of his defensive game so much). Soler’s their only good outfielder.
“Lester’s a good pitcher but, for that contract, he’s not all that much better than a guy like Liriano.”
Lester>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Liriano
Oh I know what you meant of course. And if the team is projected in the 80-85 win range, they could just as easily fall into the 75-80 “actual” range as they could move up into the 85-90 “actual” win range, so your point isn’t without merit.
That said, I *would* prefer my team make some improvements to move into the 80-85 “projected” win range, where if things break right they’re in the postseason (or at least contending for it for much of the year), rather than hanging out in the 75-80 “projected” range (which requires a lot more things to break right and getting a lot more good luck and breakout performances to get into postseason contention).
@Milhouse This is what I meant:
Last 2 years:
Liriano: 3.26 xFIP, 323.1 IP
Lester: 3.49 xFIP, 433 IP
Lester averaged 55 IP more per year. Is that worth an extra $13 M/year?
This comes from @timwilliamsP2 from PiratesProspects, btw.
“Lester averaged 55 IP more per year. Is that worth an extra $13 M/year?”
That’s approximately one very good middle reliever, which goes for $6MM or so these days, plus Lester has the added security of his durability increasing the likelihood he’ll be there to pitch when you need him to. Maybe not $13MM but sometimes when you can afford the name brand you just go out and get the name brand.
Or it might mean more
Mileage in Lester arm
There’s quite a bit of evidence suggesting 2015 Lester will be closer to 2014 Lester than 2012-13 Lester (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-much-to-believe-in-jon-lesters-2014/). And all of your other concerns are theoretically built into the projections, so they don’t contradict any of Dave’s analysis. For example, Steamer expects Hammel and Arrieta to regress, so that’s included in the wins projection. Expecting them to regress further than Steamer does suggests you know something about those players that a very successful projection system is missing.
Okay, “>” is “better than”, but FOURTEEN >? Or are the repeats meant to signify “many times better than”, like in those isolated tribes that count 1-2-many?
Or, maybe you mean that one (1) Lester goes right the equivalent of fourteen (14) Lirianos. I’d need some numbers on that.
We knew what you meant. We just felt your lack of valuable insight was worth a glib, pithy response.
They could win 80, random variation being what it is. But it’s probably a 5% chance or so.
If we’re playing over/under, I’m taking the over, and I’m a Cards fan.
Well thank you, and as a Cubs fan I will consider the Cardinals the class of the NL Central until proven otherwise. The blueprint for an almost perfect mid western team has been starting us all in the face for decades and it’s only now that comparisons can be made.
Can we at least wait for the winter meatings to end, before we start churning out pre-preseaon accomplishments?
If you don’t like and want more articles like this don’t click on them.
Ah right, the market works best when there’s no feedback from consumers.
The feedback that writers typically use is in the form of page views, not one-sentence “don’t write anything until April.”
Fewer clicks would be feedback.
Not so much, really. Fewer clicks would lead to “why don’t people care to read this”; one-sentence feedback would explain fewer clicks/shorter pageviews, especially were it upvoted (or more clicks/longer pageviews, were it downvoted).
Reading the article and contributing to the comments section, even negatively, is positive feedback from the consumers for this article. The name of the game in online publishing is getting page views and a reaction.
The lack of readers is the response from consumers.
It’s not like I stop by Taco Bell every day and tell them how shitty their food is.
Maybe if you did, their chimichangas would be more edible.
I had a winter meating also – it included beef, pork, chicken, buffalo, veal, and venison!!
So good.
Ow, my heart!
And I also mount whatever I don’t happen to eat!!
…No? If someone accomplishes something during the offseason, it will be talked about when it happens.
Your right, doing regular season projections before all the other teams make offseason upgrades/fill positions vacated by mlb starters to FA is a great way of analyzing if the cubs are contenders or not.
Exactly. Everyone knows that no one wants to see any projections until March 31st. In fact, it’s stupid to even come out with them until final 25 man rosters are set, right?
I am right about what I actually said. I’m not right about the thing you pretended I said.
All I care about is the playoffs, so we should wait until at least the All-Star break before making predictions and until September before doing any real analysis.
No no, this is timely.
The Cubs have jumped out to such a huge lead in the off-season standings, they could pretty much play .500 the rest of this off-season, yet still cruise into the post-off-season play-offs (post-offs), with as good a chance of gaining the off-season World Series as any other franchise that makes the post-offs.
The great thing about the off-season is there’s no having to put up with that injustice by which 162 games is too few for a standard deviation in ability to be negated or exceeded by a standard deviation in luck. And thereafter, there’s no basis for equating the post-offs to the same sort of turkey drop we’re familiar with in the post-season.
The GREATEST thing about THIS off-season, for Giants haters, is that with the Giants performing terribly this off-season, there’s no need to put up with that “Never bet against the Giants” crap. Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
The butthurt is strong with this one …
I am more interested in how the Cubs coming forward affects the marginal contenders like the Brewers and Reds. If teetering between buy or sell, does the Cubs moves push them to sell?
What’s the replacement level for team WAR? I thought it was somewhere between 40 and 45, but all but 3 teams are projected for < 35 WAR
A replacement level team is zero WAR, which translates to roughly a 47-115 record.
Right. So why do only 3 teams project for more than 35 WAR which would be 82 wins?
You can’t use WAR in that manner
Doesn’t the whole theory of WAR revolve around the idea that the mean for teams’ WAR would add up to an 81 win team (or equivalently a 0 WAR team would win 47 games)?
An unprecedented era of parity.
The projections have the AL better than the NL. About half the teams are at 34 wins or better, but only five of them are in the NL.
Mike – the entire theory around WAR is that there is 1000 WAR to be distributed out to players. 570 WAR to hitters and 430 WAR to pitchers. It is not based on, nor directly related to, team wins.
@munchtime correct, but also relevant to note that WAR is more strongly correlated w/ team wins than any other metric I know of. It’s just not a linear “1WAR = 1 game in standings” relationship.
Pale Hose, is it really that low? You’d figure any franchise with zero WAR under which they only win 47 games would replace everyone.
So… what’s going wrong with Rob Neyer’s brain?
I am surprised that the closer issue is not mentioned. The Cubs were 8-20 in April with blown save after blown save. The Cubs brought in Rondon in second half and with the emergence of their middle relievers, they were pretty much lights out.
Haha it’s not mentioned because it’s just not very important. The numbers you cite lack context (how many games did they lose that a better closer would have been the difference?) and small sample size.
Plus, saves are silly.
Plus, they’ll address it.
Saves are silly. Blown saves sure aren’t.
“First off, let me start with the annual reminder that you absolutely do not want to build a 2015 forecast by starting with a team’s 2014 record and adjusting up or down to account for offseason transactions.”
I think the frequency of this reminder needs to be increased.
E.G. The Angels won 20 more games this year than last, and they certainly didn’t add 20 projected wins last off-season.
Subjectively, I like the Cubs better the projections. If you give Joe Maddon good personnel, he has usually added (in my view) a win or two just by optimizing talent better than other managers. For instance, the projection system has Maddon getting 0.6 WAR out of his left-fielders. I’ll take the over on that one.
Any manager who decides to pull Ben Zobrist from second base every other game to give Logan Forsythe playing time is not optimizing talent.
Maddon’s teams annually under performed their projections. #2014preseasonchamps #0rings #09bestinfieldever
This is projected team performance, but does it necessarily reflect their projected results given they have 2 higher performing teams in their division?
IMO this question needs more attention.
The Cubs, if they’re improving (Everyone agrees they are; the question is, How much?), are improving in a context that, by both graphs Cameron inserted in this article, was the most competitive division last season, has (by far) the highest cumulative team WAR by these current evaluations, looks to be the most competitive division next season, and accounts for 76/162nds of their season.
Do these baseruns calculations take into account the schedule they are playing? Do the Nationals get more wins because their division projects to be weaker, or is that not considered?
On October 21, 2015, the Cubs will be crowned World Series champions.
-Back to the Future II
http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/World_Series
I’d put money on that!
What, you got an almanac or something?
No way the WS is finished by Oct. 21.
(BTTF2 didn’t anticipate the divisional round.)
Don’t know about the 2015 season, but the Cubs have already caught a couple of breaks in this off-season:
1. since the next regular season doesn’t open until April 6, 2015, that means a full week more time for the Cubs to enjoy their status as reigning World Champions*, and
2. since the 2015 regular season won’t end until October 4, that means it’s likely the 2015 World Season will carry on into November, 2015, which, if that happens, in turn means the Cubs technically will continue their reign as World Champions* longer into the next off-season than did the 2013-14 off-season champions.
Oop, missed the footnote:
[*Off-Season Division]
My take-away is that I can now tell these uppity White Sox fan friends of mine that they are still not even the best team in Chicago.
Says who? The White Sox and Cubs seasonal win totals will be eerily similar.
How does signing Lester make the Cubs better than the White Sox? The White Sox still have the best pitcher in town and they still have the best position player in town. Each team has a lot of questions, but the White Sox have the better rotation, the Bullpens are now pretty equal… the starting lineups for both teams are full of questions.
In what way do the Sox have the best position player in town? Not only is Rizzo coming off a better year than Abreu, but he has the better projection too. It’s definitely close (we’re talking fractions of wins, so basically they are equal), but I’d personally take the younger, better athlete that doesn’t embarrass himself on the field over the DH.
As for the starting lineups overall, I’d definitely take the Cubs’ upside over the scrubs the Sox have to choose from at catcher, second, third, left and right.
“The White Sox still have the best pitcher in town and they still have the best position player in town.”
You’re certainly correct on the former, but the latter is said with a bit too much confidence.
Abreu 2014 fWAR/2015 Steamer: 5.3/3.7
Rizzo 2014 fWAR/2015 Steamer: 5.6/4.5
Wow! Those projections must prove your point. Abreu led baseball in OPS+ last year. I’ll take the superior hitter at 1st base and you can take the WAR gain due to Rizzo’s “glove.” OPS+ of 169 to 151 isn’t that close… Also, this “Abreu is a butcher in the field” stuff is complete trash and comical. Why do I have to listen to people address defensive metrics as if they hold any merit? Defensive metrics, at this point in time, are laughable and the year to year fluctuation proves that. I guess Alex Gordon is one of the 5 best players in baseball because his defensive value last year? I mean… his WAR says so, so it must be true.
Abreu also got much better as the year went on, and struggled from a sore ankle the 2nd month of the year.
Lol the *past* disproves your point; and the projections are useful shorthand for “Abreu had a very high BABIP, the league now has more scouting on him, he’s 28 years old, and he’s not particularly athletic.”
They’re both quite good players, and who will have a better year next year is beyond me. But to state baldly that the White Sox have “the best position player in town” is wrong based on last year’s stats alone, to say nothing of what we can expect going forward.
Once again, Abreu was the better offensive player in every metric. I’ll evaluate my first baseman with a heavy bias towards offensive production in comparison to their defensive metrics.
Abreu got better, as I said, as the year went on. Did the league not collect more data on Abreu as the year went on? Abreu was supposed to be susceptible on fastballs, and then went on to have the 2nd highest WRC and OPS+ on fastablls in baseball last year. Since when is being 28 a bad thing? He’s in the prime of his career.
Abreu was, arguably, the most productive offensive player in baseball last year. So I think I’m safe in saying they have, currently, the best position player in town. Hope that clears things up.
@RationalFan you should use wRC+ instead of OPS+. Abreu’s home park is much more hitter friendly than Rizzo’s.
2014 wRC+:
Abreu – 165
Rizzo – 153
Doesn’t close the gap all the way, but it’s a 12 point gap instead of the 18 point gap when unadjusted. I doubt Abreu’s .356 babip is repeatable (Rizzo was at .311), so i’d objectively say that closes some more of the gap.
Rizzo is a stud w/ the bat. Abreu is a stud with the bat. Splitting hairs to look at 1 season of hitting and conclude one is better than the other.
Add in defense and baserunning, plus age, I would take Rizzo.
Add in contract, and I’d take Rizzo, although I’d be thrilled with either of them.
It’s possible Rational Fan is trying us on. Just consider the highly ironic avatar name.
Sale is unquestionably the best pitcher in Chicago. However, the gap isn’t nearly as big as it was before this morning. The White Sox are doing good things, so I’m not really caring whether or not the Cubs compare to them. One only needs to look to AAA to see the Cubs’ real advantage.
The White Sox will have 4 of the top 80 prospects in baseball entering this season, according to most expected prospect rankings. Prospects are overrated anyway. The Royals had “the best farm system” in baseball for 6 years. The majority of those guys were busts, and the Royals might get one playoff performance out of that group.
In other words, “I’ll cite the rankings – hey look at our prospects!! – but just in case they don’t pan out, I’ll say that prospects are overrated. That way we can’t lose!”
No, it’s just pretty clear to everyone that follows the game rationally that prospects have become overrated and overvalued. As I said, go back and look at the top 10 prospect list the past 20 years. You’ll be lucky if 3 of the guys listed equated to average major league players. I’m not excited about Tim Anderson or the likes. I may be excited about Rodon because he was a top 3 pick, and will be on the big league roster next year, but I’m fully understanding of the fact that there’s a decent chance Rodon will suck; because prospects tend to suck more than they tend to succeed. If you ask a Cub fan, they have Mike Trout, Roberto Alomar, and Miguel Cabrera coming up this year. Odds are at least 1/2 the Cubs prospects will suck.
For a poster who gives off nothing but anger, you sure have an ironic obsession with rationality.
Anger? Not mad in the least bit; just having a discussion. This site has salivated over the Cubs rebuild for the past two years. Which is fine; they have their right to an opinion. This was just the same site that in 2009 wrote a piece cautioning everyone to not overvalue prospects. That same piece listed how about 65% of top prospect do not go on to be everyday MLB starters. Young players has been and will continue to be a weakness in Steamer projections. When you have 5 of them starting for you next year, as of right now, the reliability of those Steamer projections is not good. That’s all. No hostility. I may have trolled a couple posts, but what’s the point of intereneting! if you don’t get a little trolling in?
“I may have trolled a couple posts, but what’s the point of intereneting! if you don’t get a little trolling in?”
Who can argue with genuine frontier gibberish?
@ Rational Fan,
Here are the success rates of top prospects, lucky to have 3 succeeding from the top 10 is not accurate.
http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2013/12/death-to-tinstaapp-updating-mckinneys.html
My takeaway is that Dave Cameron is a fan of the Cubs who is not seeing the big picture and that Rob Neyer and Keith Law (who both don’t see the Cubs as anything more than a .500 team) do. There’s no way the Cubs are better than the Chisox right now. That would be true even if all of Baez, Soler, Alcantara and Bryant beat the odds and are average MLB starters this year.
Agree. The Cubs have holes all over the diamond. So do the White Sox. I’m certainly not proclaiming the White Sox as elite baseball contenders… because they have holes and still need some things to happen or go their way for that to be the case. Cub fans are always premature.
Not sure how a team that is relying on, basically, 6 rookies everyday is “really a contender.”
Zoinks! The creator of USS Mariner’s real loyalties have been smoked out.
And he’d have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
Three things:
1) Cameron has the Cubs at 84 wins. That’s basically saying they are a .500 team.
2) Why exactly do you see the White Sox as the better team when they don’t have anyone at catcher, second, third, left, and right that even has anything to dream on?
3) If Baez, Soler, Alcantara, and Bryant are all average (~2 WAR) players this year, then the Cubs would probably project to be something like a 90 win team. Keep in mind that Steamer doesn’t particularly like Baez or Alcantara.
The White Sox catcher that is “no one” had a higher WAR last year than Miguel Montero (1.8 for Flowers, 1.2 for Montero). Not sure how you can refer to Flowers as a nobody and give the Cubs credit for Montero.
How is Avisail Garcia nothing, but all the Cubs prospects are assumed to be average major leaguers?
You assuming that all 4 prospects will be average MLB players is comical.
Can we stop citing WAR as if it’s the only statistic that matters and the only one that values a player properly? If Flowers was on the open market, he’d be lucky to get 7-8 million a year from someone. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not because every GM is an idiot.
He’s not, but if they did, the Cubs would be better. Thinking the cubs are going to be decent has nothing to do with being a homer. I hate the bastards.
Tyler Flowers is a 29 year old who just had his best season, and in that season he was a below average catcher. yes, he was better than Montero last year, but every other year of their careers Montero was significantly better than Flowers. Also, at this point Montero is platooning with Castillo who was better last year, and every year before that than Flowers.
The highest Avisail Garcia has ever been ranked on a prospect list is 74th, in his career, which is about 500 plate appearances he’s been about league average, and he’s coming off a torn labrum. He’s obviously no where near the same kind of prospect as the Cubs’ best young players. Obviously, prospects bust all the time so maybe he will be the best out of the whole bunch, but that’s not a bet I would take.
I was never claiming that all the prospects would be league average. I was pointing out that the 84 win projection has several of them being below average players and that if by some miracle they were all above average, then they would be more like a 90 win team. That would be like the 90th percentile outcome for this Cubs team.
1) 84 wins is the Cubs’ upside for the reasons everyone else is stating.
2)C: Tyler Flowers had more WAR than Montero last year in fewer at bats. 2B: I have no idea what the Chisox are doing there. It looked like Semien’s job but now they are evidently adding a replacement from outside. 3B: Connor Gillaspie is adequate. RF belongs to Garcia and LF will apparently go to someone outside the organization after they thankfully dump Viciedo.
3) Wrong- Cameron’s using the steamer projections for all of those guys, which has Baez and Alcantara at 1.1 WAR, Bryant and Soler at 2.2 WAR. All of that is already figured in, which is a major flaw in the analysis.
JayT, have you even looked at Montero’s numbers? His 2013 was even worse than his 2014. Those two bad years are a trend, not an aberration. Instead, its looking like his 2011 and 2012 are the flash in the pan which you can no longer expect from the aging Montero.
Can we stop citing WAR as if it’s the only statistic that matters values a player properly?
Sure, as soon as you produce an alternative framework and show your work.
1) 84 wins is the Cubs current projection. You can disagree with that all you want, but that isn’t their upside.
2)I already talked about Flowers, it wouldn’t surprise me if he were replacement level next year. Second is obviously a black hole. At third Gillaspie is a 27 year old with 1.7 career war. Not sure I would call that adequate. Left field is another black hole, and right field is a lower tier prospect coming off a very serious injury.
3) What exactly did I say that was wrong? I said they would be something like a 90 win team. As of right now in the projections they have a lot of at bats going to replacement level guys like Junior lake. If the Cubs were to get 600 league average plate appearances from all of their top prospects, I think it would push them up considerably from where they are now. My 90 win projection was just a back of the envelope calculation. I would believe anything from 86-92.
As for Montero, he still hits righties quite well (.719 OPS in 2013, .735 OPS last year) and he is going to be platooned with a catcher that had a better WAR than Flowers. Add in the fact that he’s considered a top tier pitch framer, and it’s easy to see why I would think the Cubs’ catching situation is much better than depending on a guy that has never even been league average in his career.
So every White Sox player will get worse, every Cub player will get better and no White Sox players will get better. Got it.
If every prospect was league average they win 90 games you said… and you want to know what’s wrong with that statement? The majority of prospects fail. That might be what’s wrong with that statement.
I’m sorry, but I tend to expect young players with high pedigrees to improve more often than late 20’s players that have never even been league average. Call me weird, that’s just the way I see it.
@Rational, I can see it’s pointless to argue with you. You don’t even read what I’ve said.
I never claimed they would all be league average. I said in the unlikely event that happened, that they would be even better than their current 84 win projection. That is all I said. Personally, unless they improve left field and their bullpen, I think they will be right around 81 wins this coming year.
@JayT … I’ll admit I may have trolled you a tiny bit, and purposely ignored a couple of your points while embellishing others. That said, I can’t say I agree with your Flowers evaluation. Flowers was once a top prospect in baseball, and technically last year was his year 28 season. You need to look no further than Josh Donaldson for further proof that players can figure the game out at different ages. I would feel more comfortably going into next year with the expectation that Flowers will remain level, and may improve slightly, than I am with the belief that Montero will suddenly return to form from two years ago. I think you see what you get with Montero at this point; his peak years are behind him. The argument could be made that Flowers peak years are in front of him.
As for others; I’m not a big fan of Baez. I don’t believe a contact rate as low as his can lead to sustained MLB success. I think Baez has a high probability of busting. Bryant, it seems less likely but Brandon Wood will always sit in the back of my mind with these big 3rd base prospects. Alcantra and Soler I am much higher on than the others. I love Soler’s skill set, and think he could be an impact player right away. Alcantra strikes me as a steady player, with a limited ceiling, but one you need to have on a roster.
“it’s pointless to argue with you. You don’t even read what I’ve said”
He’s not reading, he’s skimming; that’s what trolls do.
BTW, Rational Fan: it’s mildly informative that you admit you “may have trolled a couple of posts”, but if you really want to do this thread a solid, you should make some sort of sign about when you’re trolling, when you’re ‘maybe’ trolling, and when you’re, by your own standards, trying to make a point seriously.
E.g. the first would come with a smiley face, the second with a smiley face followed by a question mark, and the third with some warranty or other, such as “seriously”, “truthfully”, or even “literally”. But do try to take some care towards consistency; for instance, should you mark a given post “seriously”, you should take care not to add a smiley face.
The only issue you seem to have with Dave’s methodology is a reliance on Steamer projections which are, you claim, bullish on the Cubs prospects. Have you seen any evidence to support this belief (legitimate question, not intended to be facetious)? I’d also be curious to see the same exercise performed in the AL to see where the White Sox would stand.
Rational Fan, you’re overlooking some major factors in your overly simplistic assessment of the catcher position for the two teams. “Flowers was 0.6 WAR better than Montero” is pretty far from a comprehensive analysis. The continued existence of Castillo alone throws quite a wrench in it, considering he put up 5.5 WAR over the past two seasons compared to 1.7 for Tyler Flowers. The fact is, the Cubs now have two starting caliber backstops with relatively pronounced, complimentary platoon splits. They will both benefit from seeing fewer PAs against same-handed pitching while the team will benefit from not having to routinely trot out the typical dumpster fire backup catcher most teams are forced to stomach a couple of times a week.
More pointedly, Flowers put up a .308 wOBA and 93 wRC+ in his career year last season. In comparison, Montero put up a .322 wOBA and 100 wRC+ against RHP in his down season while Castillo has crushed LHP to the tune of a career .372 wOBA and 134 wRC+ against them. I feel confident in saying that a Montero/Castillo platoon will significantly outproduce Tyler Flowers and his backup in 2015.
I would love to see a list of the teams Dave has been accused of being a fan of over the years. Bet it’s close to 30.
Guys- I know he’s an M’s guy at heart. I meant that he’s a big fan of the Cubs’ rebuild. This is not the first doe-eyed article he’s written about their rebuild even in the past 6 months.
This offseason alone we’ve seen comments accusing him and Jeff of being in the tank for the A’s, Red Sox, Dodgers and Indians, among others.
But we can all agree that Fangraphs is unfairly biased against the Phillies. Mookie-for-Hamels, straight up!
Nerf
Everyone is against phillies because they might be the worst run franchise in baseball. They waited too long to trade any assets drafted poorly and now have an over 35 core and no prospects. That is just inept. If I was running the phillies I will just keep signing people. For example. Rollins will never be part of another winning phillies team. Flip him forbear prospects available. Sign drew and flip him at the deadline. Teams like mets and cubs hhave made themselves better this way
When you look at the team depth charts for 2015 all Cardinals hitters have an aggregate bat of 52.8 but in the table to the right the team bat is 27.4. What’s going on there?
I think it’s safe to say that Kris Bryant will be playing a full season (minus 3 weeks). And when he does arrive he won’t be playing 3B. Between Valbuena, Addison Russell, Baez and Alcantara, 3B is covered. Bryant will play LF so he’ll be replacing Coghlan’s 0.4 WAR projection rather than Valbuena’s 1.9. “Kris has to learn to play LF” is the perfect excuse to keep him in AAA for 3 weeks in order to get the extra year of control.
Valbuena is the only third baseman in that group. If Cubs’ leadership thinks that Valbuena is a better option at third than Kris Bryant, then Kris Bryant isn’t very good.
And the other three are shortstops, which means they can handle third at least adequately. It’s not about those guys being better options, it’s about putting the best lineup on the field. And Bryant in LF/those guys at 3B is a better option than Bryant at 3B/Coghlan in LF.
The Cubs squeezed every ounce of good luck they could out of Valbuena in 2014. I think he’s a below average player going forward. My point is that if Valbuena is playing every day in the Cubs line-up in 2015, then that means the hyped prospects are yet another year away from developing, and the Cubs are most certainly not contending for anything.
I don’t think it’s prudent to move Bryant to a position he’s never played, and one that is less valuable than third base, when the only player blocking his way is a 29-year-old journeyman utility infielder with a career RC+ of 88, and who will be probably a non-tender candidate next offseason.
It is a common misconception that because WAR allocates different positional adjustments that is means one position is easier than the other, and someone who is a good player at a harder defensive position would also be a good player at an easier defensive position.
While it may seem plausible that a good fielding SS should be able to succeed at 3B, the positions are not that similar. The most obvious is how much closer the 3B is to the plate than the SS, which requires faster reaction times. It would be a fairly significant adjustment to fielding conditions, and one that can not be expected to be simple.
On the flip side, the threshold for an acceptable level offense is different between SS and 3B. An acceptable offensive performance at SS might not be at 3B.
“It is a common misconception that because WAR allocates different positional adjustments that is means one position is easier than the other, and someone who is a good player at a harder defensive position would also be a good player at an easier defensive position.
”
That’s not why it’s a common assumption. It’s a common assumption because it’s true, and it’s been the experience of baseball players for many decades.
Third base is SS on easy mode.
…or Valbuena at 3B is better than their options in RF. Bryant projects as a decent RF. Valbuena not so much.
Jorge Soler is the RF
Er, what? Bryant in LF and Valbuena at 3B sounds a better option than Bryant at 3B, Valbuena on the bench, and a black hole in LF, even if Bryant isn’t terrible with the glove.
Valbuena also can play second. If Baez continues to struggle with his K-rate, Bryant gets called to play 3rd, Valbuena goes to 2nd and Baez works on not striking out in Iowa.
I don’t understand.
The Cubs still have unknowns in left field, center field, right field, 3rd base and 2nd base. How are they now contenders because they signed a starting pitcher?
Unknowns still have projectable value. Some of them will reach it. Others won’t. Others will exceed it. Anything else?
Just because you don’t know them doesn’t mean they aren’t productive. For instance, Valbuena was about equal to Sandoval last year
Yeah, Valubuena is the same as Sandoval. That makes sense…. the majority of prospects do not pan out in baseball. People seem to have forgotten that. Go check the top 10 prospect lists the past 10 years. You’re lucky if 3 of the top 10 turn into average major leaguers.
But the Cubs have a boatload, so some of them will.
That sounded like a fun challenge and I had a minute, so here’s 10 years ago:
1. Joe Mauer (Superstar)
2. Felix Hernandez (Superstar)
3. Delmon Young (Bench bat)
4. Ian Stewart (Minor leaguer/Bench bat)
5. Joel Guzman (Minor leaguer)
6. Casey Kotchman (Bench Bat)
7. Scott Kazmir (Average Starter)
8. Rickie Weeks (All-Star)
9. Andy Marte (Minor leaguer)
10. Hanley Ramirez (Superstar)
3 superstars, an All-Star, and an average starter. 5/10 made your cut, and four of them exceeded it. Three of them blew it away. Maybe not representative, though, so I figured I’d check another benchmark. 5 year ago:
1. Jason Heyward (All-Star)
2. Stephen Strasburg (Ace)
3. Giancarlo Stanton (Superstar)
4. Jesus Montero (Bench bat)
5. Brian Matusz (MLB reliever)
6. Desmond Jennings (3 WAR starter)
7. Buster Posey (Superstar)
8. Pedro Alvarez (Average starter)
9. Neftali Feliz (All-star)
10. Carlos Santana (3 WAR starter)
3 superstars/aces, two all-stars, two 3-WAR starters, an average starter, and a reliever. 9/10 met your threshold, 7 of them blew it away.
This still may not be representative, of course. But it’s pretty clear which body part you were talking out of with that “3 out of 10 become average MLBers” line.
They have a boatload? Really? Everyone loves their top 3 guys (Soler, Baez, Bryant) Their next three all have fans as well (Alcantara, Almora, Schwarber). Some believe that CJ Edwards is a top 3 starter too. After that? Nothing. They built this one group of kids and they all are arriving in the majors at the same time. However after those guys graduate the Cubs won’t be in the top half of farm systems.
@ Fergie’s boys
By the time that crop of players has “graduated,” our top 100 prospect lists will have nearly completely turned over.
But to the point that they are uniquely AAA-heavy, I might disagree: they’ll have a top 10 pick this year to add more talent; Schwarber/Almora/Johnson/Underwood/Edwards is considered a very good crop who are only around AA right now; they have two very hotly-tipped IFA signings just hitting the proper system next year; and in general those players who make top 100 lists are farther along anyway, so it’s something of a fool’s errand to think this way.
Again: I don’t know how good the system will look in 2017, and a lot of their cred is around Baez/Bryant/Russel/Soler, all of whom could be in MLB next year. But predicting who will have a good farm system two years’ out is real tough, and CHN is not looking uniquely bad in that regard.
Russell is in the next 3 that would be in anybody else’s top 3. Before you call what the Cubs have “nothing”, look up what the comparable ranks are in other organizations. Don’t take my word for it. Go read Sickels’ article on the Cubs’ top 20 he just put out.
Arc…:
http://philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-11.pdf
Maybe give that a read. I don’t have the same threshold as a bust, as Wang does… I consider anything less than an everyday player, from a top 10 prospect, as a bust. Wang has 40% of top 10 hitting prospects being everyday players or stars. Pitchers he has 8% of the top 10 being everyday players or stars. Combined, it’s around 34-35% so I was off by 4-5% points. We can use your hand picking of a couple years though if you’d prefer that…
Bottom line is about 65% of top 10 prospects are not everyday MLB players. In the Cubs case, they need 4 prospects to be everyday players or stars next year. The odds of that aren’t very likely.
I notice you have not returned Arc. Based on my data, it would appear you owe me an apology.
Why do they “need” that?
Despite your laughable request for an apology an hour after posting your reply, that was all really interesting. Thanks for the link – and for taking this more seriously than any ten people combined should. Lessens the load. (Seriously. Not all of us are madly refreshing to page to scan for responses.)
Your assertion about top 10 prospects as a category has support. I stand corrected.
What’s interesting is all the things you left out – including the context that caused you to make that assertion in the first place.
For example, the Cubs top prospects are all hitters. So the hitter+pitcher number is not the most relevant one. 40% is the number for top 10 hitting prospects.
Another thing you left out was the 10-25 section into which other Cubs prospects surely fall. That’s 30% by itself. Pretty decent. 26-50 was 20%. So for the entire top 50, it’s roughly 33% – with many of those above the threshold being stars.
Another couple interesting things to look at would be the baseline and the sample. I don’t have time to dig into the WAB vs. WAR angle (the researcher gets the benefit of the doubt for sure), but it would be interesting to see the translation.
As for samples, the author himself mentioned that limitation with regard to pitchers specifically. It’s possible the conclusions would vary significantly from 2000-2010. It might even be likely, given to the two years I “hand-picked” (chose at random based on your suggestion). This could be variance, improvement in the quality of the top prospect population, or improvement in the accuracy of top prospect evaluation. It’s almost a certainty that the extra money and attention in this field has made it *worse* and arguably likely to have made it better.
In any event, two things are clear: 1) you had a valid, informed basis for your 30% assertion; and 2) you completely overstated both the quality of that evidence and the conclusion for which that evidence served as the only support.
A 0 WAB is closer to an average MLB players than a 0 WAR is. WAB has a higher threshold in regards to it’s 0 value.
I was also joking around in regards to my responses/comments. Don’t take this so seriously, I’m just killing some time at the office.
The basis for my point was that we have come to a point in time in which we are overvaluing prospects. Prospects in baseball have always been the great unknown. Obviously the sample isn’t large enough to draw and definitive conclusions from, but it helps to confirm my assertion that prospects are less than a coinflip.
Kyle, they would “need that” for them to be contenders as the article states.
This, too, is interesting: http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2013/12/death-to-tinstaapp-updating-mckinneys.html
“Kyle, they would “need that” for them to be contenders as the article states.”
Why? There’s no combination of performances from the other 30 or so players that will see playing time that would get them there?
This team is full of question marks, to be sure (and lol@Vegas odds right now), but these aren’t black hole unknowns. LF, RF, and 2B could by May be manned by three top-20 prospects, and that 3B is more unknown to you than he is to the leaderboards (he last year put up 2.7 fWAR, .3 shy of $95M man Sandoval, without any batted ball/BABIP outliers). CF is, indeed, quite unknown.
Can we stop citing WAR as if it’s the only statistic that matters and the only one that values a player properly? If Valbuena was on the open market, he’d be lucky to get 7-8 million a year from someone. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not because every GM is an idiot.
lovin that #hottake bro
What a guy gets paid is even more irrelevant. It doesn’t imply success and sure doesn’t guarantee it.
Can we stop citing WAR as if it’s the only statistic that values a player properly?
Sure, as soon as you produce an alternative framework and show your work.
That’s not a bad turnabout, but the point was better when he made it, considering the whopping 1.8 WAR from Tyler Flowers was basically the only thing worth mentioning from his 2014 season. Luis Valbuena put up a .342 wOBA and 116 wRC+ last year, good for 2.7 WAR. He’s maintained respectable peripherals and BABIP on the low side, suggesting his performance is sustainable (in contrast to Flowers, whose .355 BABIP is a safe bet to suffer some regression).
You don’t understand because you’re making a great deal of effort to avoid understanding. You’re filtering facts through preconceptions.
Dave touches on the huge flaw in this analysis when he notes the presence of Jackson and Wood in the matrix but doesn’t seem to realize how big an issue it is.
Baseline runs and WAR are both totally dependent on playing time (too much in my opinion). The Cubs currently have 2 full time catchers on that roster and 7 full time starting pitchers, not to mention several prospects who are projected to play significant time together with the incumbents who are still on the roster. Take away all of the guys who aren’t going to be Cubs next year or will be bench players instead of starters and the matrix drops tremendously. The Dodgers and Giants also have Sandoval/ Hanley-sized holes in their rosters that they have not yet filled. Both of those teams are going to jump up 5% or so when they fill their holes and the Cubs are going to drop 15-20% when they dump Jackson/Wood/Castillo/whoever off their rosters and determine who’s actually going to make their roster.
I’m surprised Dave doesn’t mention Castro’s legal troubles or the fact that Montero has less WAR/baseruns than Castillo.
“Castro’s legal troubles”?
Castro was questioned about a shooting in a Dominican nightclub. The rumors range from “Castro killed multiple people with a machine gun, similar to Tony Montana at the end of Scarface” to “Castro was at a nightclub where a shooting occurred.”
Not exactly legal troubles to be a nightclub where a shooting occurred, thought I had missed something else.
Either Castro or Engel Beltre is on video leaving the scene with a gun in his hand. That’s a 50% shot of him being in huge trouble and a 100% shot of him having a huge distraction hanging over him.
You do realize Castro was already cleared in the night club incident, correct? There was no legal issue and there will be nothing hanging over his head.
Theo has already said that if they got Lester they “will be” adding a big bat. Your interpretation of what that means may vary (Upton? Headley?)
Unless they add one more arm and an impact bat I don’t see this team being anything other than middle of the pack struggling to stay around .500. Maybe Bryant lives up to the hype and has a Trout-like impact right away but barring that I’m not imbibing that kool aid.
This article has brought some real winners out of the woodwork. And it didn’t even touch on Cole Hamels!
This is what happens when we base team predictions on Steamer. They have Montero being worth more wins than his last 2 season’s combined. They also have all 4 Cubs rookies (Baez, Alcantra, Bryant, and Soler) being worth positive value above replacement which doesn’t account for the large error bars that should be placed on rookie hitters.
Could the Cubs be above .500, sure if everything breaks right, but you could say that for most teams. It seems awfully premature to crown them “contenders” in a very tough division with so much riding on rookie talent.
The error bar has nothing to do with the projection’s ultimate value. Mike Trout could be worth 5 wins next year, but he could be worth 11. So we project 8. Projections are based on the expected performance bro.
yeah bro, the median can be deceptive if the range is broad.
Step back and ask yourself how common it is for an offense heavily dependent on 1st year players to turn out even average. Just look at the normal path of even elite prospects, it takes time.
The Cubs basically played .500 ball for the final 2/3 of the season with those rookie hitters and a trade sending two of their best three starters away for not much that helped the MLB club in 2014.
They are replacing Edwin Jackson with Jon Lester, John Baker with Miguel Montero and adding 5.2 months of Kris Bryant. I’m not sure why people think that this team, which isn’t done in this offseason, wouldn’t be projected for at least 84 wins. This isn’t even accounting for the fact that those rookie hitters are likely to at least slightly improve on their rookie campaigns after getting their feet wet in 2014.
It’s the mean, not median (well, it’s really the probability distribution times the probability density function but that’s basically a mean of all potential outcomes weighted by their probability). Median would have an upwards bias because the probability distribution for performance of top prospects is definitely skewed right. The mean, however, is an expected value. The size of the confidence interval should have no effect on expected value, or the team’s projected wins. It should mean that the Cubs could easily be much worse, or much better, than the projection. But it doesn’t mean that the projection is biased upwards.
The offense is heavily dependent on Anthony Rizzo. Everyone else just needs to not be terrible.
Error bars go both ways. Those rookies could outperform their projections too.
And Montero was worth north of 4 wins in 2011 and 2012, so 2.6 isn’t really inconceivable.
It’s 2014, and he’s been a below average catcher the past two seasons. Unless he’s getting younger, or taking steroids, there’s no reason to believe he’ll return to that value.
Good point: No baseball player, in the history of the game, has ever had two below-average seasons and gone on to improve his performance.
Read his comment Nerf. He (rationally) said “no reason to believe”. Do you actually believe that a guy coming off two awful seasons is going to transform back into the player he was three years ago now that he’s 31 years old?
No. But that’s why we’ve got the projections. They weight all different possible outcomes with their probabilities and evidently, they are much more favourable towards Montero than you are.
True, but the projections look a lot like best case scenarios with the exception of Soler maybe.
“the projections look a lot like best case scenarios with the exception of Soler maybe”
1.1 WAR out of Baez strikes you as “best case scenario”? I don’t have particularly much faith in him to succeed, but Kolten Wong put up 2 WAR in a relatively disappointing rookie campaign by a less-touted prospect. If Baez doesn’t collapse completely, 1.1 WAR strikes me as far from his “best case scenario.”
I could go down the list for each, but the projections individually are pretty modest, weighed down heavily by the odds that they flame out completely. It seems quite reasonable that they’d find 6.6 WAR among Baez/Alcantara/Soler/Bryant (whenever he comes up) — but it seems likely it will come from one or two while the rest stumble.
Baez was worth -0.3 last year in quite a few atbats. I think 1.1 in 300 atbats is pretty optimistic.
Again, I don’t have too much faith in Baez — in part for exactly what you’re talking about. But pretty much *none* of the predictions are “best case scenario,” unless the “best case scenario” for every one of these guys is “worse than less-highly-touted prospect Kolten Wong’s somewhat disappointing rookie year.”
Baez adjusted slowly at every level of the minors, then played steady, then caught fire and killed the league for a minute before getting promoted. Every single one.
It is POSSIBLE that he will be one of the most valuable players in the NL after the All-Star break in 2015. What is more likely for a 22-year-old with K tendencies playing his first full season in MLB is that he will be OK. You know, about 1.1 WAR or so.
You’d almost think we’re talking about what’s more likely, rather than the fact that a bunch of average-based projections are representing the “best case scenario.”
It isn’t just the Cubs, the projection of 8 wins from Ike Davis, Eric Sogard, Marcus Semien, and Brett Lawrie seems laughably optimistic if that is supposed to be the median (they had less than 3 wins in 2014). Go figure the Cubs and A’s are the two teams where FG is fighting a battle with other outlets.
This goes back to trusting the projections.
Montero’s Steamer is almost absurdly bullish — a better BsR than 3 of the past 4 years, a BABIP bounceback that may never happen if it’s due in part to his losing a step, and a positive defense regression to a number nearly twice the past two years’ figures. The last I could see (SSS in defense etc. etc.) but in the scope of his career those two high-def years look like the SSS defense aberration, not the other way around.
Maybe FG has snuck pitch framing estimates into C DEF without telling us.
Tell me more about Montero’s Steamer….
I thought 2 WAR was replacement level.
No, it may be a league averge-ish starter, but 0 WAR is (by definition) replacement level. 2 WAR players aren’t the easiest thing to come by and are quite valuable.
My takeaway from this is that the Rockies are contenders. Way to bury the lead, Dave.
*lede*
*mother lode*
“Way to bury the lead, Dave.”
– mrs. Cameron
What makes this deal so exciting is less the roster now, and more what the team can and probably will be. The roster as currently constructed has only an outside shot of making the playoffs (still something a Cubs fan should be excited about after the past few years). But signing Lester signals the start of an era of contention. Cubs fans can hope for free agent signings or mid-season upgrades to plug in holes in the current roster. But even a 84 win season in 2015 would make Cubs fans very happy, since the young guys are developing and the front office probably isn’t done spending.
Will Lester win more games than if Shark would have stayed with the Cubs?
Maybe, maybe not, but Lester +McKinney+Russell > Shark.
Uh-uh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If by “win more games” you mean “be credited by an ancient official standard with being the winning pitcher”, I’d say, WTF cares?
There are lots of pitchers who had truly terrible seasons yet, due to their own teams happening to support them with more runs scored than their averages, or due to chance vulturing, or both, ended the season with winning records, even being credited with winning more games than when they’ve pitched demonstrably better.
See, e.g. Tim Lincecum over the last 3 seasons; he was almost eerie in vulturing wins this season: 2011 pitched pretty well, losing record; 2012 pitched horribly, losing record; 2013 pitched inconsistently but mostly poorly, losing record; 2014 pitched so badly he was pulled from the rotation, sent to the bullpen, to be mostly ignored, and limited to a single appearance of 1.2 IP in the post-season, WINNING record.
Oh boy, another year where “if these 10 things all pan out, the cubs have a good chance”.
As a cardinals fan in northern IL (and suffering through a bears season), it would be cool if the cubs and cards were actually good in the same season. That would be fun.
Most interesting thing to all teams is how injuries are avoided and dealt with.
I know. That’s why they play the games, rather than just ponder about the what ifs.
The Cubs have to hope that the 2007 D-Backs are not the best case scenario. That team had the following players all hitting the Majors at about the same time, with Baseball America’s overall prospect rankings:
Justin Upton #2
Stephen Drew #5
Chris Young #8
Conor Jackson #17
Carlos Quentin #20
Yusmeiro Petit #46
Miguel Montero #63
Micach Owings #98
And the only reason Mark Reynolds wasn’t on the list was due to his 16th round pick status. But in 2006, Reynolds put up huge numbers in the minor leagues – not as ridiculous as Bryant’s at the same age, but I daresay he was a poor-man’s version of Bryant.
The 2007 D-Backs had three top 10, five top 20, and 8 top 100 overall prospects, all of whom were 25 or younger, all of whom played significant roles in the 2007 season. Plus Mark Reyolds, plus Brandon Webb in his prime (who was better than Jon Lester).
And basically, the 2007 D-Backs were about a .500 team that ended up with the best record in the NL because they were remarkable in clutch hitting and pitching that year. They got swept by Colorado in the NLCS.
The next year, they regressed to the .500 team that was a reflection of their true talent, followed by two years of shit, and then another rebuild that has produced mixed results.
And while the D-Backs didn’t have Theo Epstein at the helm in 2007, they had Epstein’s assistant GM in Boston at the helm.
Good luck, Cubs fans.
That’s some deep analysis. I’m legitimately impressed.
Couple questions:
1) Any evidence with the increased visibility (or maybe this is personal bias because I care more now) that prospect rankings are more accurate than they used to be?
2) Why, in your opinion, did the D’Bags fail?
Rankings are not more accurate; if it appears that way, it’s simply variance and noise.
The D-Bags didn’t fail; they simply suffered the fate of most organizations that rely heavily on one crop of prospects to succeed. You could argue that they actually had a successful group; Drew is still an everyday SS. Upton is an All-Star calibar bat. Quentin had 3 + years, and one +++ year. Chris Young was good for two years. Montero had two good seasons. Fact of the matter is, most top prospects fail. Getting marginal success for even 2-3 years is a success. It’s why I have continued to tell people to slow down each and every time they anoint baseballs next great team based on prospect rankings. As I said, look at the Royals; the majority of their elite prospects failed, and the ones that succeeded have not become elite level players. Baseball is really hard. Predicting who will adjust to the difficulties in the MLB are even harder. A lot of these elite prospects have never failed before they reach the big leagues, and knowing how they’ll react to failure is a guess at best.
Too bad you didn’t write something like that 100 posts ago. That’s a fine synopsis.
Wrong two things, Cardinals and Pirates suck in 2015.
Rob Neyer blows. Everybody knows it except, seemingly, his employer.
Get out of your parent’s basement losers! This is why America loves football.
Neyer’s analysis made no sense. He may end up being right but the reasons he gave were ridiculous. It would be very surprising if Edwin Jackson was given a chance to throw 140 innings with a 6 plus ERA. Also, it ignores that Jorge Soler only got 89 at bats and projects to be a significant upgrade.
It’s really disappointing to read a headline with such little logic to back it up. I’m glad there are other writers that look at things a little more seriously.
Soler projects at 2.2 WAR. That’s not a significant upgrade. You might also notice that Soler got off to an incredible start and then tailed off significantly.
A bad final week to the season, its significance is supersignificantly nonsignificant.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statsd.aspx?playerid=14221&position=OF
Significant!
BTW the Cubs got -0.6 WAR out of RF in 2014. Might want to rerun that T-Test.
Part of the reason baseruns predicts teams to be closer to the average than they actually end up after the season is because the linear weights model is flawed for predicting individual team outcomes. Dave thinks the Cubs underperformed last year because their actual record was worse than their baseruns record. He thinks the discrepancy is to do with bad luck in sequencing. However, some fraction of the discrepancy is surely to do with the fact that the linear weights applied to the Cubs batting outcomes are simply wrong, and overestimate their worth.
The linear weights that are fed into wOBA, wRC+, etc. for batting outcomes are league wide averages. However, no individual lineup is average, so the actual values to individual clubs are different. Batting outcomes for players on poor hitting teams are worth less than the weights that are used, and batting outcomes for players on good hitting teams are worth more. For example walks and singles on the worst hitting teams are almost worthless in real life, because they rarely have the hits behind them needed to produce actual runs. On the other hand, a walk ahead of power hitters produces runs above those assigned by the league-wide linear weights.
So, baseruns actually overestimates bad hitting teams, by assigning higher linear weights than the real values the team experiences, and underrates good hitting teams by doing the opposite. Some fraction of the Cubs underperforming their baseruns expectation last year is simply to do with the fact that baseruns gives the Cubs more credit than their batting outcomes were actually worth, based on the fact that they had a below average lineup. The model is flawed for individual teams, and how much it is flawed is a function of how far from average the lineup is. The Cubs had a pretty terrible lineup.
This. This has long bugged me. But should we then create WRC+(Team)? Different players evidently have some objective offensive ability, but, should we also try to measure their value to different teams, as in trades? This seems to be a particularly important thing.
I guess you don’t know what baseruns is. It’s a dynamic, non-linear model. So it would account for the things you are talking about.
Ah, you are correct. Baseruns does not use linear weights. It isn’t clear to me what it does use, but I am entirely wrong. Cheers.
As am I. Two minutes later. WRC+T still stands.
DNA+, I am the creator of baseruns. There are some good descriptions readily available, but I’ll be happy to answer any questions…
dcs, thanks for the offer. I read the explanation here: http://danagonistes.blogspot.co.uk/2004/11/brief-history-of-run-estimation-base.html, and it seems pretty straightforward. I like the approach. Cheers again.