Hey Sheep:

[Captain Obvious]

But that's the beauty of baseball. All teams play 162 games so they are on equal footing.

In 2014 they do.

We're talking about Cubs history. The MLB hasn't always played 162.

 

[zack54attack]

1993: Marlins newbie
2003: Marlins 2 time Champs.

2009: Ricketts newbie
6 years and counting.

Wont really argue the 1993 Marlins team and see the argument you're trying to make. But 3 of their key pieces to that 2003 team were Miggy, Beckett and Willis all prospects. That's what the Cubs are banking on. Prospects to be the core of the team.

 

[nickofypres]

Like how the Cubs have the worst 3 year record in franchise history?

Cubs aren't as bad as their record indicates this year, dummy.

If you apply their run diff. to their W-L they're at 25-30 on the season.

Cubs just need to get some hitters, which they're banking on from Vitters, Solar, Bryant, et.

They're not that far from being competitive, they just need luck and to spend $ on hitters when the time is right.

 

[nwfisch]

Cubs aren't as bad as their record indicates this year

Yes they are.

 

[nickofypres]

Yes they are.

lol okay.

 

[Capt. Serious]

Cubs aren't as bad as their record indicates this year, dummy.

If you apply their run diff. to their W-L they're at 25-30 on the season.

Cubs just need to get some hitters, which they're banking on from Vitters, Solar, Bryant, et.

They're not that far from being competitive, they just need luck and to spend $ on hitters when the time is right.

You can't be serious?

 

[nickofypres]

You can't be serious?

The Cubs really aren't that far off. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to grasp.

 

[SilenceS]

Could the Cubs compete in a year one off season. Abolutely, Bosio has proven he is good pitching coach. Our bullpen is young and has power arms. Its all about hitting. They can get 2 more hitters. They could absolutely compete. Now, will they. I have no fucking clue with Ricketts.

 

[CSF77]

Vitters: No
Baez needs to hit AAA pitching.
Bryant I'm not sure if they milk it.
Alcantara not a diffrence maker.

What I see:

Alcantara=Bonifacio
Baez?
Bryant?
Schierholtz gone. I could see them giving Kalish RF for the year.


Honestly we are banking on Baez stabilizing in AAA and then going through growing pains this year. It could happen he struggles this year and we go to S/T crossing our fingers.

Bryant they could milk another year for AAA. Replace Olt with Vill and let Bryant develop more. (I wouldn't do this)

They lose Bonifacio and gain Alcantara. basically a wash in the end.

They lose Hammel and add Hendricks. I'm guessing a loss. I can not expect a rookie to give a even return on Hammel's season so far.


I see a net loss going into next year. If they trade Shark and Baez hits. Another wash. Then have to figure another player moved to open up playing time. Net loss.


Best case:

Baez promotes in July. Takes over 2B. Alcantara promotes up and takes over CF. Bryant skips AAA and moves to 3B. Hendricks promotes.

They sell Bonifacio, Schierholtz, Olt, Hammel for prospects.

That puts the team at:

LF: Lake
CF: Alcantara
RF: Kalish
3B: Bryant
SS: Castro
2B: Baez
1B: Rizzo
C: Castillo

Now I'm betting that Castro gets traded this year. Baez has improved his SS D significantly and Castro has built up some trade value this year.

If that happens I'm extending Bonifacio in CF and keeping Baez and Alcantara at SS/2B. It puts 2 S/H at the top. Then they can put Baez 3 and Rizzo 4 with Bryant 5.

I'm still using Olt as a toss in. Some team will give him a chance to adapt to the league. Cubs do not seem 100% committed to it with Bryant incoming.


Still that is 1 extreme case. More likely they keep conservative and approach it from a cost effective approach. Not from a putting fans back in the seats approach.

 

[DewsSox79]

The Cubs really aren't that far off. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to grasp.

lol.


Sent from Whitesox901s Vagina
using Tapatalk

 

[DewsSox79]

Cubs aren't as bad as their record indicates this year, dummy.

If you apply their run diff. to their W-L they're at 25-30 on the season.

Cubs just need to get some hitters, which they're banking on from Vitters, Solar, Bryant, et.

They're not that far from being competitive, they just need luck and to spend $ on hitters when the time is right.

run diff is so inconsistent to use to gauge a teams true idenity. If you want to add into a mix of other things fine , using alone can really throw off a fan and what expectations should be and what projections end up being, its the one stat that is the coulda,woulda,shoulda and can be tossed into another direction within a few bad games.


Sent from Whitesox901s Vagina
using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

Cubs win 8-0
Lose 3-5
Lose 0-3
Lose 2-5
Lose 0-2

Net 13 runs for. 15 against.
Record: 1-4.

Means little.

 

[beckdawg]

run diff is so inconsistent to use to gauge a teams true idenity. If you want to add into a mix of other things fine , using alone can really throw off a fan and what expectations should be and what projections end up being, its the one stat that is the coulda,woulda,shoulda and can be tossed into another direction within a few bad games.


Sent from Whitesox901s Vagina
using Tapatalk

MLB is a bit too volatile in record because there's only 162 data points per year. In that regard, run diff isn't really a great predictor because it's often hard to get the noise out of the data. This is why expected win/loss is more a guide than a hard and fast rule. However, while it may not be amazing in terms of projection, it does give a pretty good indication of competitiveness. Occasionally there may be an outlier where a team pounds certain teams often enough to obfuscate the times when they get pounded. That not withstanding, generally it is a quick way to see how many runs you're scoring and giving up which in turn is a good way to measure competitiveness. Wins and losses also requires sequencing(getting runs when it matters vs in blow outs). So, I think it's fine to cite that as reasoning for a team being better than others think if for no other reason than minor additions can turn into rapid changes in record. If you're -100 at year end and it's not because of some horrible injury/fluke year, you have a hell of a long climb to go. However, if you end the year at -10, you may be one player away from turning things around. The thing to remember though is just because you have a certain run diff that doesn't mean your record will correspond with it.

 

[Boobaby1]

Vitters: No
Baez needs to hit AAA pitching.
Bryant I'm not sure if they milk it.
Alcantara not a diffrence maker.

What I see:

Alcantara=Bonifacio
Baez?
Bryant?
Schierholtz gone. I could see them giving Kalish RF for the year.


Honestly we are banking on Baez stabilizing in AAA and then going through growing pains this year. It could happen he struggles this year and we go to S/T crossing our fingers.

Bryant they could milk another year for AAA. Replace Olt with Vill and let Bryant develop more. (I wouldn't do this)

They lose Bonifacio and gain Alcantara. basically a wash in the end.

They lose Hammel and add Hendricks. I'm guessing a loss. I can not expect a rookie to give a even return on Hammel's season so far.


I see a net loss going into next year. If they trade Shark and Baez hits. Another wash. Then have to figure another player moved to open up playing time. Net loss.


Best case:

Baez promotes in July. Takes over 2B. Alcantara promotes up and takes over CF. Bryant skips AAA and moves to 3B. Hendricks promotes.

They sell Bonifacio, Schierholtz, Olt, Hammel for prospects.

That puts the team at:

LF: Lake
CF: Alcantara
RF: Kalish
3B: Bryant
SS: Castro
2B: Baez
1B: Rizzo
C: Castillo

Now I'm betting that Castro gets traded this year. Baez has improved his SS D significantly and Castro has built up some trade value this year.

If that happens I'm extending Bonifacio in CF and keeping Baez and Alcantara at SS/2B. It puts 2 S/H at the top. Then they can put Baez 3 and Rizzo 4 with Bryant 5.

I'm still using Olt as a toss in. Some team will give him a chance to adapt to the league. Cubs do not seem 100% committed to it with Bryant incoming.


Still that is 1 extreme case. More likely they keep conservative and approach it from a cost effective approach. Not from a putting fans back in the seats approach.

I am not sure they can afford to go another cost effective year. How much lower can you go with 31 million on the books, plus lose more of your fan base?

I will bank that the Cubs will spend in the offseason, especially if they lose shark. Now by spending, they could take a free agent-to be off of someones hands if they don't find them in the open market.

The boat cannot sink any lower than it already has, and the Cubs should have hit rock bottom last year and started an upward trend especially with Soriano's contract coming to an end.

Package some players with Shark and/or Hammel and get a better return if needed. There is no way that the Cubs payroll should be below 100 million this year, so whatever they need to do find and replace what they lose, plus what gets them going towards there goal is where they need to go.

Sitting on their thumbs is only accomplishing a top pick in the draft, and that only means you stink at the parent level. They have had plenty of top picks, and it's time for that to end.

 

[CSF77]

I am not sure they can afford to go another cost effective year. How much lower can you go with 31 million on the books, plus lose more of your fan base?

I will bank that the Cubs will spend in the offseason, especially if they lose shark. Now by spending, they could take a free agent-to be off of someones hands if they don't find them in the open market.

The boat cannot sink any lower than it already has, and the Cubs should have hit rock bottom last year and started an upward trend especially with Soriano's contract coming to an end.

Package some players with Shark and/or Hammel and get a better return if needed. There is no way that the Cubs payroll should be below 100 million this year, so whatever they need to do find and replace what they lose, plus what gets them going towards there goal is where they need to go.

Sitting on their thumbs is only accomplishing a top pick in the draft, and that only means you stink at the parent level. They have had plenty of top picks, and it's time for that to end.

2015 commitments:
Jackson 13 mil
Castro: 6.857 mil
Fuji .500 mil
Soler 2.667 mil
Rizzo 5.286 mil
Sweeney 1.5 mil
Veras .15 mil
Concepcion 1.2 mil

31.16 mil committed.



Arb:3
Shark (big payday here) 5.345 mil in 14
Russell 1.775 mil in 14
Valbuena has a Arb 4 1.710 mil in 14
Wright 1.425 mil in 14
McDonald 1 mil in 14

Arb 2
Wood 3.9 mil in 14
Barney 2.3 mil in 14
Ruggiano 2 mil in 14
Strop 1.325 mil in 14

Arb 1
Arrieta
Kalish
Castillo
Vizcaino

So I see Vizcaino on the team next year with him going into Arb1.

I would put any new Arb1 around 1.5 mil up to 4 mil for Arrieta. Doubt Arrieta gets that due to him not able to go deep into games thus far.

Barney should be cut/traded. He is in a reserve role making 2.3 mil.
Wood I can see getting 5 mil next year.
Shark 10-12 mil in arb.

I would hold onto Valbuena. They have 2 years of control and I'm expecting 2 mil in Arb.

Payroll wise they are losing 23 mil to F/A. Then subtract pay raises I would guess 10 mil total. 13 mil net.
They decide to go cheap back fill at 2B/SP/CF Baez, Alcantara, Hendricks.

With that 13 mil I would try to add a LH bat in RF.
Colby Rasmus F/A He fits the bill.

I'm not sure if they will spend the cash needed though.

 

[nwfisch]

MLB is a bit too volatile in record because there's only 162 data points per year.

Right.

I don't think I ever heard a 162 game sample size be too small in any sport.

 

[zack54attack]

The Cubs run differential isn't as bad as it could be, but the big difference is their record in 1 or 2 run games. Don't know it off the top of my head, but it's very bad.

Edit: something like 5-20?

 

[zack54attack]

Cubs win 8-0
Lose 3-5
Lose 0-3
Lose 2-5
Lose 0-2

Net 13 runs for. 15 against.
Record: 1-4.

Means little.

Bingo.

 

[beckdawg]

Right.

I don't think I ever heard a 162 game sample size be too small in any sport.

Well not to be a dick but then you don't know how statistics works then. Look at it this way, after 162 at bats Bonifacio was still hitting .339/.350/.689. Is that enough to conclude what type of hitter he is? 162 games isn't enough data points to remove statistical noise. It just isn't. This is one of the major reasons record projections is almost universally terrible. Even when people get the team right they can often been 10 wins off what they project.

 

[diavolos]

Well not to be a dick but then you don't know how statistics works then. Look at it this way, after 162 at bats Bonifacio was still hitting .339/.350/.689. Is that enough to conclude what type of hitter he is? 162 games isn't enough data points to remove statistical noise. It just isn't. This is one of the major reasons record projections is almost universally terrible. Even when people get the team right they can often been 10 wins off what they project.

you're conflating two disparate things, games for a team and at-bats for an individual. considering that the length of a season is 162 games, i don't understand your comment about volatility.