The Cubs have been an enigmatic team this year in a few ways. I was looking earlier for reasons to be optimistic about the Cubs, and I found some; however, the Cubs have been equally lucky in a few ways.
The Cubs are 29th in the league in Offensive Batting Average on Balls In Play, with .265. That is a historically bad number (it would be the lowest rate in the past 5 years). While there have been healthy and vigorous debates on the merits of BABIP at the individual level, there really is no argument when you consider that rate team-wide. .265 just isn't a sustainable measure, even considering the park factors that really do work to depress BABIP at Wrigley Field. I'd imagine that going forward .280 or so is a more reasonable clip (still bad, but the Cubs are a bad offensive team); that's an extra hit every 3 days, maybe, but an extra hit can be all the difference.
Unfortunately for the Cubs, they also have a Defensive BABIP of .265. It's the 2nd best rate in the league, and it's going to go up. The Cubs as a team are also 2nd in the league in GB% (50.1%), which is a primary driver of BABIP, so it's entirely reasonable to expect the Cubs to be good in this respect, but not as phenomenal as they've been (there exists a fairly loose correlation between GB% and BABIP – if only because GB isn't a line drive). Unfortunately, the Cubs are also 1st in the league in both LD% and IFFB%. Sure, these aren't stats that are necessarily going to regress; there just isn't a whole lot of room to improve in either area (the only way to go is down).
The Cubs themselves are middle of the road in nearly all batted ball categories; 17th in LD%, 16th in GB%, 12th in FB%, 25th in IFFB% (unfortunately), 7th in HR/FB. This is a) another indication of the probable improvement in BABIP and b) fairly expected given the offensive makeup of this squad. However, there is one thing that is pretty glaring, and that's the Cubs' .188 BABIP with RISP. It's 30th by a LOOONG way, and so is the accompanying .221 wOBA. In fact, I can't ever find a worse BABIP with RISP going back some 20-odd years (for that matter, I can't find a sub-.500 OPS in the fast few years, either). That change is going to come; when it does, I assure you the Cubs will look a lot, lot better.
On a related note, it appears that the Cubs are applying "selective aggression" to their plate appearances. They are 3rd in the league in swing rate (46.6%); curiously enough, they are actually still above average in P/PA (due to their ability to foul pitches off). I like the approach so far, if the Cubs can keep it up (and as an aside, I would soooo preach fouling off pitches if I was a hitting coach. I'm sure most teams do).
All told, I think most of the bounces this year have gone against the Cubs (and BP thinks so too; they have us pegged as a .500 team and I agree). The bullpen has already come around (don't look now, they are 13th in FIP). The bats will too. When they do, the wins are going to come and it's going to be deeply unsatisfying when they trade off midseason.
Comments
The Cubs are 4 out of their last 5 games. If they keep that up, heck lets say they slack off a bit and only win 3 out of every 5 for the rest of the year, then they will have about 92 wins at years end which should be good enough for a playoff spot.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Phew! Here I was worried they’d have to settle for a wild card spot.
joshQuote Reply
Josh, is that a scarf, or is the Hope Monster a red belt in karate?
MylesQuote Reply
That is all.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
Does…not…compute…please explain…
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Exactly.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
So, if you take the top 100 pitchers (with qualifying innings) and separate them by K-BB/PA and then separate them into 5 tiers of pitchers, the Cubs starting rotation has 1 A-tier pitcher (Shark), one B-tier pitcher (Villanueva), and 2 D-tier pitchers (Jackson and Wood). The average team should only have around 3 of this quality of pitcher (and I liberally made the cut marks at 20/40/60/80 to simulate a “good playoff team” as having a pitcher from each category), so that’s good for the Cubs.
MylesQuote Reply
By that same methodology, the Rays are sick-nasty. They have an A-tier pitcher (Moore), two B-tier pitchers (Price, Hernandez (dying laughing)), and two C-tier pitchers (Hellickson, Cobb).
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Did you see that Heyman said he heard the Rays might trade Price to the Cubs (or the Rangers) this offseason? I heard via BN Brett.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I’ve seen that rumor buzzing around. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a smoke screen to get people to bid higher for Price.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Fashion scarf.
joshQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
This is your way of supporting gay marriage, isn’t it?
joshQuote Reply
New Aside
I did see it. It’s probably nothing, or what Berselius said. That being said, the Cubs would have to be SERIOUSLY dumb to not try to bid for Price. I doubt we have the right type of prospects for them (someone like Profar, as Brett said, and even that’s not enough) because we don’t have the impact at the top of the farm, but those are the trades you have to make in this landscape to be competitive.
The Cubs can’t compete as easily in free agency right now, with the way the rules are structured. Because of that, you need to get the good players before they ever become free agents, either via trades and extensions or drafting and developing. I’d rather trade and extend for elite talents (and Price is a very elite talent), because the bust rate is so high for (especially low-level) prospects. Take a team’s 3 best pitching prospects right now, and I’d be pretty comfortable betting that none of them match up to Price even in the aggregate. Sure, you’ll get burned on a few organizations, but that’s true for the vast majority of teams.
I’d offer Baez/Almora/Johnson for Price and not even blink once. I’d exchange Soler for any of those 3 too; I didn’t include him because he’s more costly than the others (we’d probably have to ship them cash). I wouldn’t LOVE the idea of trading all 4 for him, but I’d probably do it too. I might have to get something back, but that’s the type of package it’s going to take for Price, and it’s probably fair.
It’s all academic, because Texas will offer Profar/Olt/Perez or something like that anyway.
MylesQuote Reply
Nice article. I’m a little more hesitant to say that things will begin to look better for the Cubs though. I think they’ll definitely improve in some ways, but also get worse in others. The Cubs ERA for the starters is going to regress in the wrong direction. I think it will end up being middle of the pack, which is right where the FIP is. I actually think the Cubs bullpen will be worse the rest of the way. The Cubs are currently 6th in ISO and that’s not going to continue. While they will get better at situational hitting, the drop in power may offset it. I expect the team wRC+ to be bottom 5 and maybe bottom 2 or 3 again.
I think this is a team, if a few things click, that could be better than the average NL team, but I think there’s a slim chance of that.
dmick89Quote Reply
This article would make Matt Garza all tingly inside.
dmick89Quote Reply
Soler was apparently benched for not running out a ground ball: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130429&content_id=46129702¬ebook_id=46145856&vkey=notebook_chc&c_id=chc
dmick89Quote Reply
Myles wrote:
For a guy like Stanton I’d have no problem throwing in every prospect the Cubs have. Here, take them all. I’m not so sure about doing so for a pitcher, even if he’s as good as Price. Pitchers get hurt far too often and that return could end up looking like shit. It wouldn’t even be surprising if it happened. No problem giving the Rays Baez plus Johnson, but I’d not include two of the top prospects the Cubs have.
dmick89Quote Reply
What happened to dmick, Resident Optimist? I thought you were a True Cubs Fan
MylesQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
You see, I’m actually starting to go the other way on Stanton. I love the guy, and at this point, yeah, I’d give up 1-5 on the prospect list or something like that. However, he is injury-prone. He was banged up last year and he’s on the DL again this year. I agree about pitchers getting injured, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility to imagine Stanton never playing more than 130 games a year for some good, long stretches of his career. This was his first hamstring issue, but he’s had plenty of knee issues in the past.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
The difference is that Stanton is only making ~570k this year
BerseliusQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
Truth. He also plays every day (or is supposed to). I think Stanton is way more valuable than Price is. Stanton is going to get way more in a trade than Price is, isn’t going to be traded until next year at the earliest (Arb 1, so he’s going to get expensive just like Price), and isn’t a sure thing either (less than most other uber-talented young stars because of injury).
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
I’m a fake.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’ll gladly admit that there are no certainties when it comes to how a player will perform now or in the future. However, if I’m giving up half the farm system, I want someone who is going to play every day (position player). I’d give up quite a bit for Price, but just not as much as Stanton.
dmick89Quote Reply
I pay no attention whatsoever to the NBA, but obviously with news yesterday that Jason Collins came out as gay, well, that was huge news. I don’t think it should be, but it is. Anyway, based on what I read, it didn’t sound as though he was a sure thing to be playing next year so that would mean that no active player has come out and that the media would likely spin it as the NBA being anti-gay. Nate Silver took a look at players who are similar and found that only 61% played the following season. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/jason-collins-breaks-a-barrier-but-will-he-find-another-n-b-a-job/
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
There’s already some rumblings with that issue and the NFL, as Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbedejo are both out of a job right now.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
And there’s no possible way that there is prejudice in the NBA?
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
Sure. I’m not saying there isn’t. I’m just saying that if Collins isn’t re-signed, it doesn’t automatically mean that his sexual orientation is the reason for it. 39% of similar players didn’t get re-signed.
If Collins isn’t signed in the next NBA offseason, the media is immediately going to report that it has to do with him being gay. I’m just saying that’s not necessarily true.
dmick89Quote Reply
Randy Wells —–> ga–, err, I mean, retired.
GBTSQuote Reply
Obviously there’s prejudice in all of these sports. Otherwise yesterday wouldn’t have been big news. I was just saying that there is a good chance Collins wasn’t going to be re-signed had he not come out.
dmick89Quote Reply
Did Nate Silver compare Jason Collins to similarly situated 34 year old centers who also have unlimited marketing and public relations potential?
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
That’s because the Iowa Cubs hit the shit out of him last night
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
It seemed to me that he was implying in his article that he was waiting to be unattached to a team before he came out. I got the feeling he was at least semi-expecting never to work again.
joshQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
A team might gain in PR, but there won’t be any marketing gain. Come on. That’s like Brent Lillibridge coming out and expecting the Cubs to gain anything by marketing they have the gay Brent Lillibridge.
Come see the Cubs and homosexual Brent Lillibridge take on the St. Louis Cardinals this Friday.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ josh:
I’m sure he knows the odds of him being re-signed and maybe he just wants to retire.
dmick89Quote Reply
Here’s mine: http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/comments/accelerated-scoring-rules
dmick89Quote Reply
Hey dmick, got a brochure in the mail today, but I think it was supposed to go to you. After all, you are the true Cubs fan. (dying laughing)
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
This may be blasphemous, but good gawd that thing is ugly.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I think the Olympics do this. Or they did when they used to have baseball.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
I was going to say that, but I didn’t want to come across as cynical.
joshQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I think WBC did something similar too
BerseliusQuote Reply
Jackson’s stuff is looking much crisper today
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I agree 100%. It’s way more tacky than this:
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
Wow, Roy Halladay really sucked today.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’m not a fan of playing around with batter counts as it messes up the stats. Also, beginning with runners on base raises the obvious question: who gets to be on base?
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I’d also be strongly opposed to rule changes as early as the 10th inning. Those happen frequently enough and aren’t a bid deal. I’d rather be a rule change be one that we see infrequently and that exists more to prevent “emergencies” (e.g., 19-inning games). I don’t mind an occasional 11-innning game, and would rather not see rules getting crazy at that point.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Also, is it just me or does Tango rarely see a rule change proposal that he doesn’t like?
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
False.
WaLiQuote Reply
Regression is a bitch, amirite?
joshQuote Reply
Wow is that Corey Wooten?? He looks tiny for a DE
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
He also sucks at singing.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
People used to think Harry Caray sucked at singing, but I’d wager 90% of the “guest conductors” have been worse.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Of course, Caray knew the words and the tempo of the song.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Teaser rally!
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
He just has a tiny head.
joshQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
this
GWQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
Yeah. It’s so surprising to find someone who is the exact opposite of the 100% of other baseball fans who hate every idea. Some of the ideas have been silly, but at least he recognizes there’s a problem.
dmick89Quote Reply
Baseball is like going out to dinner and a movie for the average person. It’s something to do. Right now, they’re eating at Applebee’s and watching a slow-moving independent film with a solid certified fresh rating of 70. A few changes could fix the pacing and improve it to a 90, but the independent writer/director is too proud to make those changes. He thinks more highly of his work than others do and doesn’t recognize why the fresh rating is only 70. Everybody else must be wrong, he thinks.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Tom Tango just isn’t a True Baseball Fan #haters #negativity #meaninglessplatitudes
MylesQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
That was as good of an analogy as your shitty WAR salsa.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
That analogy isn’t a very good one – if watching baseball was like eating at Applebee’s Tango would fucking love it and not want to change anything.
BerseliusQuote Reply
New shit http://obstructedview.net/minor-leagues/jot-cubs-minor-league-recap-4-30-13.html
@ Berselius:
(dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
mikeakaleroy wrote:
Destined to crash.
NotrynoQuote Reply
@ josh:
Only because steroids aren’t a problem in the NFL.
It may have just been the camera angle because he is listed as 6’6″ 270, but he looked small in the booth.
WaLiQuote Reply