Bleacher Bums Forum

Don't think you grasp difference between actual performance and projection.

Take strand rate. If you are watching a game today and pitcher is pitching out of trouble, he is doing a good job. If it's a Cubs pitcher, you are not going to say Hammel sucks today when he successfully strands runners. If he does that, it's a good performance. Stranding runners is GOOD.

But, we know that an abnormally high strand rate is not sustainable long-term. See Randy Wells in that good season. So, of course, we have to look at that and the context. But, that was an extreme case, no real previous track record, and don't think too many had delusions about Wells at that level. So, if anybody looked only at his ERA, that was dumb.

On the other hand, most cases are more of a mixed bag. You "discount" ERA. Your word. Discount means "unworthy of consideration." Dictionary definition. So,when you say you look at ERA in some way, that is BS. That is dumb too because ERA is a very good measurement of pitcher performance in actually preventing runs. It's what actually happened in that game and in that season and in that career.

Not the whole story, true, which is why I look at FIP stats too but rely on ERA at about 50%. But, on what planet is actual outs/runs pitcher performance "unworthy of consideration?"

Get real.

fWAR ignores actual parks where pitcher at issue pitches and ignores actual teams pitches against (see link). rWAR takes that into account. That's what I was referring to.

The link you gave is out of date.  Fangraphs has not published how the treat park factors.  In the past the adjusted for home starts (roughly half) as well as league.  Would it be more accurate to do every park, sure.  Will it amount to much of a difference no.  The link you provided BR applies the park/league to the league average pitcher and not the pitcher himself.  You also missed the point, when I was mentioning league/park adjustments I was talking about xFIP- which is league and park adjusted.  If your going to compare to a career average this is the type of stat you want to use.  Not just ERA or xFIP or whatever you want to use. 

This is more of a Cubs in '16 question...

How bad would a Schwarber-Bryant-Soler outfield be, defensively? Would Bryant be more of an injury risk in CF? Schwarber has looked better than I think most of us expected in LF, and I think Soler is better than he played in stretches this season.

I'm completely enthralled at the thought of a Baez/Russell left side of the infield next season (or even Russell/Baez)...

In this config, I see a batting order of...

Russell
Schwarber
Bryant
Rizzo
Soler
Montero
Castro
P
Baez

Will Castro have enough patience to hit 7th? Would Baez? Would Montero be better in that slot? If P 9th, who is the better choice for 8th? Can Russell be effective in the 1 hole? Will he show more speed than he has this season?

In my opinion, Schwarber - Bryant - Soler would be a below average defensive outfield.  But it might well provide enough surplus offensive production to be an overall plus.  Especially if both Baez and Castro perform well offensively in the infield.  The infield defense of Baez - Russell - Castro - Rizzo might be the best in baseball.

Still a little early to assume that Baez and Castro will be plus offensive players, but there is enough potential there that I would love to see them try it.

Another thing to remember is that even if everyone mentioned performs well, Maddon shuffles people around often enough that we would probably only see that lineup about half the time.

Feels weird talking about what to do with next year's money when we're heading into the playoffs.  Still, with playoff spot secured and nothing really at stake, it's kind of fun. 

1.  Blue has really focused on Price, who I assume will be way more expensive/long than Theo will end up paying. 
2.  DaveP has suggested that Cubs may prefer to sign two guys instead of one.  Cover two spots, increase the depth, could sign two Hammel-level guys for less than one Price, and certainly could shorten the commitment. 

All depends on the dollars, and the scouting, obviously. 

*IF* it was financially doable, and *IF* the scouting justified, I agree with Blue in preferring to focus on **one** as good-as-you-can-afford better pitcher, rather than splitting it between **two** guys.  If it's Price, great.  If it's not Price, see who the best guy you can afford. 

Counting Hendricks and Hammel, we've already got four guys.  Those two haven't always been great this half.  But I like Hendricks and think he's a good rotation value.  Hammel, he's under contract, he's mostly pitched well for us for the last two years, and I think his hamstring or whatever has impacted him; I don't expect that to carry over into next year.  So I think good chance that he'll be an acceptable late-rotation guy next spring.  So, we've got 4 guys; we really only need one new starter.  Lets get the best one we can get/afford.  Get a variably good one as your #3 starter, let Hendricks/Hammel fill out #4/5 spots, and let your offense and bullpen win a lot of games. 

Don't really pursue two half-price starters.  We can't guarantee two starter spots; and a guy who isn't good enough to command a guaranteed spot probably isn't that good.  Lets just get the best individual guy we can afford.  Whether that's Price, Zimmerman, Cueto, Samardzija, Kazmir, I don't know. 

A challenge has been the insurance/depth.  If we add a single rotation guy, suppose Cueto or Zimmerman, we may again be depth-risky.
*May depend on how they view/value/scout Pierce Johnson.  I'd like to think that he's interesting enough that he'd be a better anti-awful emergency guy than what they had this year. 
*Would be nice to be able to resign Cahill and/or Richard.  Cahill may look for a place with a clear competition opportunity, so not sure he'll want to resign if Arrieta/Lester/Cueto/Hendricks/Hammel are pretty much written in rotation, and his only shot to start is injury.  So maybe he'd rather sign with Minnesota or Cinci or Milwaukee or wherever, such that if he pitches well, he'd have a clear competition within which he can win a job.  But, I'd love to have him back if he's willing to resign.
*If we had Cahill, Pierce Johnson, Richard, and Wood all still in the organization, I think I'd be pretty OK with the rotation contingency plans. 

So, here's the plan:
1.  Sign the best single rotation guy you can. 
2.  Resign Cahill and Richard, and retain Wood.
3.  Go hard after one more good relief pitcher X, better than Hunter.  Pen:  Rondon, Strop, X, Grimm, Cahill, Wood, Richard. 
4.  Resign Fowler, 3-years + options. 

Liked the play today where GB to Baez at 3B and planned to turn DP...but Phillips was running on pitch to 2B, so Baez adroitly went home for tag play there. Think most guys new to the position might have been confused there but Baez instincts are off the charts.

Will be interesting to see how Theo/Hoyer approach 2016 positions. My feeling still is that Castro will be traded. Think that will help sort out 2016 positions.

Easy to have missed Bryant in CF. He has grand total of three chances out there.

CF is more valuable on defensive spectrum than 3B. But, hard to believe that, even if moved to CF as a regular, Bryant would play there very long. Would lose 3B skills in year or two and end up as corner OFer too soon and doubt Cubs want that given how solid he is playing at 3B. Think long-term.

Baez is very good at 3B. No surprise there considering he is a very good SS and a very good 2B. Baez is an up-the-middle player so should be very good at 3B. Same would be true for vast majority of all top middle IFers in game. Yes, it's enticing if see them there but doesn't follow that smart to move them there permanently.

Not saying Cubs absolutely won't do this but would be unorthodox and unlikely. There is trade value in this situation because opposing clubs crave up-the-middle talent.

Keep in mind that Maddon plays with 4-man bench 85% of season, so versatility is good. You can move good athletes around, as he likes to say.

The WAR explained link is the current one on BR site, as far as I can tell. Cameron didn't say anything that contradicts what is in that link. If it's wrong in interpreting Fangraphs, hope they correct that.

Do you mean "now" instead of "not" in your second sentence above?

Fangraphs changed they way they calculate pitcher WAR and they have not released the new method on fangraphs, other than to say what is currently on their website is not correct.  So the BR graph isn't up to date, because they don't have the info.  Again I wasn't talking about WAR.  The park effects from 15 starts are not going to move the numbers a lot.