cwolf pointed out an article on Tangotiger's blog in which he says the following:
The Cubs are looking for a Director of Research & Development in their Baseball Operations. If you apply, make sure to say you “heard it from Tango”. Since we’re on the topic, I am now providing my consulting services exclusively to the Cubs.
That's awesome. This can't be anything but good news for the Cubs and their fans.
Back on ACB Mercurial Outfielder and I interviewed Tangotiger and you can read it here.
In the last thread I mentioned I thought the Cubs did have a decent chance of reaching the playoffs. Since “decent” could mean just about anything, let me explain. I think the Cubs are in a position that if several things go their way they could play in October. Last year I’d have been flat out shocked if the Cubs reached the playoffs. I thought the odds of doing so were probably under .1%. I don’t know what the percentage chance is, but I won’t be surprised if they reach the playoffs. I think it’s far more likely that they don’t. As mentioned, I peg them at about 72 wins, but with a true talent team of about 75 or so wins entering the season. That’s enough for them to reach the postseason if enough things roll their way. It’s not likely, but I won’t be surprised.
a) This is amazing news, and an important piece as well.
b) We are the only 2 people who have commented on it so far.
Bit of history: Tom Tango’s Run Expectancy Matrix was one of the first things that really got me into sabermetrics (when I concluded that you had to be nuts to bunt).
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
Could there be a dumber way of saying that? I absolutely think I’m certain there probably isn’t, but then, I’m dumber than you.
@ Myles:
Pretty sure it was that RE table that made me rethink bunts, but also Tango and MGL that made it clear that sometimes bunts are good. I think MGL wrote that chapter in The Book, but I could be wrong.
@ Suburban kid:
I told you I’m dumb.
@ Myles:
I was too busy doing somersaults at the time.
dmick89 wrote:
Oh, absolutely not a hard and fast rule. Baseball Behind The Numbers has a pretty good chapter on the “sacrifice plays.”
Baseball Between The Numbers by Baseball Prospectus? I love that book. It’s one of two stat books I’d recommend to fans who are getting interested in sabermetrics (The Book being the other).
dmick89 wrote:
It’s the one. I’ve actually never read the Book, I really should get on that.
@ Myles:
Probably a little more difficult to get through than BBTN, but one of the best baseball books I’ve ever read.
@ dmick89:
Mish was telling me about this (I also read the Book on his recommendation) so I guess I should get on that too.
Am I a hack if I say Moneyball is my favorite book?
@ Myles:
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah…
I think it was a much better book than movie though the movie was enjoyable.
This is fantastic
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this for real? Because I’m also dedicating my consulting services exclusively to the Cubs.
I like to think this move is in direct response to all my anti-Hope Monster-ing negativity lately.
@ dmick89:
BBTN was a thousand times easier to read than The Book (which I never got around to finishing)
@ dmick89:
Yes, that was MGL. That chapter was actually the main reason I bought the book, and it’s probably my favorite piece of sabermetric research ever. I refer to it whenever someone says that RE tables have refuted bunting as a strategy.
In short, MGL’s finding was not that the bunt was overused (in fact, he though managers bunted about as often as they should), but rather that the bunt should be employed unpredictably with game theory and infield positioning in mind.
Part of the problem with arguing against the bunt is that the average result of a bunt attempt is much better than exchanging a runner advance for an out. Another major part is that it ignores game theory (keeping the defense honest.)
@ Rizzo the Rat:
The surprise bunt when the 3B is playing back, or a not-so-obvious squeeze attempt when nobody is bothering to charge…those are probably the best uses of the bunt and definitely things I enjoy.
@ Rice Cube:
Basically, the 100-point bunt.
He should bring MGL along just for comic relief.
“I have an NDA.” About Ronny Cedeño? heh heh heh.
Anyway, I only lurked at ACB a little before the Jack Benny Alltime greatest season’s article, so I’m having a hard time with the history of the personalities here at OV. Am I the only one surprised that MB is now an optimist? I’m pretty sure if it weren’t for certain other comments about his choice of beverages, I would assume he is now sporting orange eyes, a red brim on his cap, and a beer gut….
I still see 100 losses. But that’s OK. When they only win 70, I’ll be the happiest guy here!
So, wait, the Cubs hired the guy who literally wrote The Book?
uncle dave wrote:
Theo must be the miracle worker we all hoped for if he was able to get Moses and Peter to come out of retirement.
So this has to raise our expected win total by at least 5, right? I mean if Theriot raises the WAR of everyone around him by 0.5 I expect at least that from TangoTiger
@ Berselius:
I just bought this book on a whim purely based on this thread. If it sucks, I’m going to throw my digital copy in the digital trash and EMPTY THE BIN!
Okay, so we have lost something valuable in the digital age.
@ SVB:
I think he’s just slowly becoming more sarcastic is all.
And who would have thought it possible?
AndCounting wrote:
Will dropping your name get me an interview with the Cubs?
Steroids going to be making its round in the news cycle again: (h/t BN)
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2013-01-31/news/a-rod-and-doping-a-miami-clinic-supplies-drugs-to-sports-biggest-names/
@ WaLi:
That sound you hear is corks popping in baseball writers’ offices across the country, for having something to grandstand on in the dead weeks before ST.
I can’t imagine people are surprised by this new PED news. These guys will never stop trying to get an edge. Not when making $15 million a year compared to league minimum is within reach. Once you get the taste of that kind of money, it’s got to be hard to let it go.
Mucker Once you get the taste of that kind of money, it’s got to be hard to let it go.
My presciousssssssssssss
/Heard in every clubhouse
@ mobile svb:
I bet Gollum had 80 power. He had a very high protien diet and had exceptional upper body strength.
@ Mucker:
No way. While I admit he really grew into his frame the best he could, I wouldn’t compare him to Vogelbach. Gollum was fighting hobbits so it’s hard to guage his actual strength.
He is probably comparable to Fontenot. Similar size, both scrappy, sneaky power.
@ Mucker:
Gollum didn’t need power. His invisibility makes it impossible to call a strike against him, he walked in every PA.
@ WaLi:
Good point about fighting Hobbits. He had tremendous hand and eye coordination as evidence by his ability to catch a fish with his bare hands. I don’t know, 80 might be a bit high but he definitely had above average power. I think he could have had 40+ HR power and he would have probably reached based at a Bondsian pace.
@ Berselius:
I was thinking because of his non-existent strike zone. I didn’t even think about the power of the ring. He would have broke the SB record too seeing as how nobody would have seen him stealing a bag.
If you thought Milton Bradley was a “clubhouse cancer”, just wait until you get a load of the guy who only eats raw fish, constantly talks to himself, and a demonstrated history of violence.
That’s either Gollum or Carlos Zambrano, I forget
Also, both are never going to end up with a ring
@ Mucker:
So maybe a 50 power, but a 75-80 hit tool.
@ WaLi:
I would say that seems reasonable.
How does Gollum grade out defensively?
I’m thinking middle infielder with good range but excellent hands and strong throwing arm. 3B maybe.
@ Mucker:
I was thinking Catcher. I mean, he already has that hunched over thing going on.
This is a weird conversation even for this place.
@ Aisle424:
Agreed. But at least it is baseball related (dying laughing)
This blog has the credibility equivalent of Mordor, so I think it works.
Uh….
I’m working on my spreadsheet for my 2013 prediction, and my current projected win total is so high that dmick is blushing. I need to figure out what’s up.
Aisle424 wrote:
The last time I seeded a weird conversation here it was about the size of teaspoon…
I had no idea this would take off like it has (neither did I for the teaspoon either) but maybe I should have, there is are a lot of scifi nerds in these parts….
(dying laughing)
@ Myles:
Gollum is only one player, not two.
@ Myles:
Without seeing it, my guess is that the league wOBA is off.
@ Berselius:
I’m not using wOBA: rather, I’m using this . League avg/obp could very, very well be off.
1st question of Bruce Levine’s chat today:
At least Bruce pretty much dismissed it.
I could be vastly overrating fielding and underrating injury attrition. I use Bill James projections for everyone for OBP/SLG/K/BB, and assume that the Cubs will give 10.3% of their PA to replacement-level batters (close to their 3-year average, positionally) and 15% of their IP to replacement-level pitchers (way lower than the 3-year average, but they have a “stockpile” of above-replacement arms). I’ve diagnosed many ways in which this could go wrong (the highlight of which is improving the -.2 WAR from 3B last season to 3 this year), but the general thrust is that I have a tentative projection that is a hair over .500 for the Cubs this year, a crazy assertion.
@ Aisle424:
@ Myles:
3 WAR from Ian Stewart et al? I’m one of the most optimistic people about Stewart and even I think that’s way too high (dying laughing)
Berselius wrote:
No… just 2.1 from Stewart (dying laughing), and 0.9 from Valbuena (dying laughing)
@ Myles:
Did you “add” in Vitters?
I thought Castro looked a little chubby.
Though I couldn’t really give two shits until I watch him in spring training.
Edwin wrote:
This raises all sorts of philosophical questions.
@ Myles:
BJ’s projections generally have a relatively high league wOBA so that might be the cause of it. Also, I agree with berselius about Stewart. I’d be happy if he’s replacement level next year and be ecstatic if he could somehow contribute 1 WAR. I’m not confident he can even be a replacement level player.
new shit: http://www.obstructedview.net/projections/updated-and-early-cairo-projected-standings.html