Bleacher Bums Forum

When did I say that those performing above expectations would necessarily be YOUNG players. Any player on the roster could have a career year.  Glen Beckert was over 30 when he hit 50 points higher than he did in the years before or after that year.

Beckert's career season is probably a very good example of random chance in baseball.  Beckert's BABIP that season was .352 compared to his career .292 BABIP.  The important thing about that season is that it emphasizes how important luck is in baseball. 

With a younger player, you don't necessarily know the baseline---from which good luck (or bad luck) plays off, one way or the other . 

When did I say that those performing above expectations would necessarily be YOUNG players.

You didn't even suggest it.  My point is that older players having career years are a virtual certainty to be traded for prospects by some team willing to overpay.

And that is a good thing.

If DeJesus is hitting .330 with an OPS of .850 at the end of June, he will be gone,  If Soriano comes remotely close to repeating last year, and doesn't block it this year, he will be gone.

I posted some of Fangraphs' positional power rankings in the last couple of weeks, which they base off a combination of ZIPS and Steamer projections that appear on their site, plus their own depth charts to determine playing time.  They finished up the position players last Wednesday.  The Cubs were strong at shortstop (#4) and first base (#5).  They were middle of the pack in the outfield spots.  They were bottom 10 but not awful at 2B and C.  And they were #29 at third base.  When Fangraphs summarized it last week, the Cubs came up #22 overall, both with the raw results and with park-adjusted results:



Today, they started the starting rotation rankings, showing rotations #16-#30.  For starting pitching, the Cubs come in...well, we don't know yet, because they're in the top 15.  The intro to the pitching rankings say that teams in the #13-#17 range are virtually indistinguishable.  The Giants and Braves are in the #16-#17 positions, so I think it's almost certain the Cubs are in that 13-17 range (I can't imagine they project to be better than those two).  Still, the Cubs are solidly middle of the pack in the rotation.

And this makes me wonder...why is everyone so dismissive of the Cubs?  They don't project to be good offensively, but there are about 8 teams who are projected to be worse.  On offense, they're in the same range with teams like the Royals and Orioles, a little ahead of the Mets and Mariners, and not even that far behind Cleveland and the Padres...but all of those teams are solidly in the bottom third in pitching.  And all of those teams are given some chance of winning this year by most fans and experts.  In fact, many of them are being picked as strong sleepers this year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I expect the Cubs to contend.  But going by the projections, the Cubs just aren't in the Astros/Twins/Marlins class that most people are putting them in.  In overall quality, the Cubs are more like the Royals, Orioles, Mets, Mariners, Indians, and Padres.  They're all flawed teams who are not likely to contend this year...but they're also all good enough that it wouldn't take *that* much going better than expected for them to make a run.

It could be that the Cubs rotation is simply so bad it was off the chart.

Cubs' rotation the 9th best in all of MLB?  Sorry, but that just seems absurd to me.

Well, the top 15 rankings came out...and the Cubs are #9.  Here are the articles:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2013-positional-power-rankings-starting-pitchers-1-15/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2013-positional-power-rankings-starting-pitchers-16-30/

What this system likes is the Cubs' depth.  A lot of the teams (Braves and Giants included) have a strong top 2-3, then drop off fast.  The Cubs have a slightly weaker top 3 than those (Samardzija/Jackson/Garza), but go 7-8 deep with legitimate major league starters.  Since the exercise is based on adding up projected WAR, having 7 guys who provide legitimate positive value in the rotation adds up. 

We'll see how it works out in practice. 

br, how much is this a conclusion dictated by the way the system works?  I don't know how it works, but I wonder if there isn't something going on in how they do it.  For example:

Do they factor in that Garza and Baker are actually injured?  The healthy, durable  Garza of the past gave one rate of WAR; do we expect him to produce that much WAR when he's going to miss the first month this year, and we don't actually know whether his arm will actually be healthy once his oblique or whatever is? 

I guess what I'm wondering is, do they just take guys, their 3-year WAR average, add in some age factor, and pump out the projected numbers?  Or do they have a factor that downgrades the projected WAR for guys coming off long disablements and in Baker's case surgery?  The past is a nice predictor of the future, of course, but not as much when injuries change the ability.