Offseason discussion/rumors

[BaBaBlacksheep]

She's an ok consolation prize I suppose.

Overrated.

Yeah, I said it.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Now, if Murphy wins MVP tomorrow, time to burn some shit down!

Cubs won the only thing that matters to me.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Im still trying to figure out if the Cubs were the best team this year.

I've got an egg in my pants will give you the answer.

 

[beckdawg]

 

[Mr. Cub]

Cubs won the only thing that matters to me.

Yeah, but having the best player, best pitcher on the BEST team is fun, too.

 

[Parade_Rain]

It was Borzello who taught him to trust his curve, not Contreras. The Athletic did an entire article about it.

Got a link?

 

[Parade_Rain]

Overrated.

Yeah, I said it.

[color="#08000"]She's morphed into the worst WAG in all of baseball. Verlander will be lucky to sniff a CY this year. [/color]

 

[DanTown]

It's weird to see arguments this year about how important the ERA title is when last year, that argument was roundly dismissed in discussing Arrieta v Grienke.

I'm not going to lie, I'm a guy who's probably 70-30 saber/eye so when I look at the three guys this year, to me it was Max 1, Fernandez 2, Syndegaard 3, Kyle 4, Lester 5. I mean I get it, he's a Cub and had a great year but I just don't see "Cy Young" out of Hendricks. I saw a really good year but I value missing bats in a Cy Young award due to the fact that ballparks and defenses greatly impact the rest.

 

[beckdawg]

Got a link?

Think it's this one

https://theathletic.com/21039/2016/...w-kyle-hendricks-became-a-cy-young-candidate/

If not this one it's another one around this time by Sahadev Sharma

 

[beckdawg]

It's weird to see arguments this year about how important the ERA title is when last year, that argument was roundly dismissed in discussing Arrieta v Grienke.

Not sure that's an apt comparison. Last year Arrieta was 1.77. Greinke was 1.66. Kershaw as 2.13. So you're talking about +.11 advantage between 1 and 2 and a +.36 between 1 and 3. Hendricks finished with a 2.13 ERA. Lester finished with a 2.44 ERA and Scherzer finished with a 2.96 ERA. There you're talking about +.31 between 1 and 2 and +.83 between 1 and 3. I'd say the difference between Lester/Hendricks is probably negligible enough to toss it out a la Arrieta v Greinke and consider other factors. Plus both Lester and Hendricks largely played under the same conditions. But, Scherzer is almost a full run behind Hendricks.

As for the rest of what you said, think there's two ways to view this. One is largely the way it was viewed and probably always will be viewed. That way is that high k/9 guys will be favored because they are more likely to repeat that going forward. The other way to view this is that the results happened. Maybe Hendricks was lucky with BABIP. Maybe it was just elite defense behind him. Maybe any number of 100 different things was the cause. But the end results happened. To me that view often gets lost. Whether that's right or wrong is personal preference. But I personally think it's folly to get caught up in whether something was a fluke or not when having these discussions because the results happened. If it was a fluke so be it. Should a player not win a batting title because he had one monstrous month?

I'm as much a stat guy as anyone but I guess for me putting as much emphasis on K's and IP as seems to be the case makes it far to clinical. The highest k/9 Greg Maddux ever had in a season was 7.77. No one would argue that Maddux wasn't a great pitcher. So, clearly there's different ways to get results. And as for the innings thing... I'm just not sure that's a fair complaint for a couple of reasons. One is Scherzer made 34 starts. Had the cubs not gone with a 6th starter and skipped a few of Hendricks he might very well have been at 210 innings which is still less than Scherzer but the difference would be less. And the second reason for this is when he's taken out of a game is entirely out of his control. If you want to give Scherzer praise for regularly throwing 120 pitches or whatever I'm cool with that but I don't think it's a fair complaint to levy against a pitcher because I'm sure Hendricks would tell you he thought he could go longer in every game he came out of.

I truly believe with Hendricks for a lot of people it comes down looking for a reason to go with someone else because he doesn't look the part. I'm honestly dubious that if Scherzer had similar BABIP numbers he'd get the same criticism Hendricks has about having a great defense(edit: i actually looked them up. Scherzer was .255 where as Hendricks was .250 yet no one is talking about that aspect with Scherzer). I guess to me you could sit here all day and say this pitcher has x or y advantage. For example, should we lessen what Kershaw did because he plays in the pitching friendly stadium for half his games? At the end of the day, results are what they are. I certainly would take Scherzer for next year over Hendricks but then that would be a case for who's the most talented pitcher and not who had the best season.

I just feel like the writers criminally undersell the art of pitching in favor of various stats which is probably why there was a disconnect with the players choosing Hendricks.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Think it's this one

https://theathletic.com/21039/2016/...w-kyle-hendricks-became-a-cy-young-candidate/

If not this one it's another one around this time by Sahadev Sharma

Subscription required. So taking a guess at how that article reads, I'd have to say the Borzello deal is strategic and Contreras tactical. I read the Contreras one as specific to that one game.

 

[brett05]

Lol yes they are. This year, there was a general consensus by everyone, except you, that the cubs were the best team during the regular season.

Sent from my bathroom using toilet talk

You and others that agree with this need to know the difference between subjective and objective. Seriously. Or you are trolling. Not for me to say really.

 

[Parade_Rain]

You and others that agree with this need to know the difference between subjective and objective. Seriously. Or you are trolling. Not for me to say really.

Are you still arguing that the Cubs weren't the best team in the regular season?

 

[brett05]

Are you still arguing that the Cubs weren't the best team in the regular season?

Not an argument that can be had objectively.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Not an argument that can be had objectively.

Yes it can. You act like 103 wins is a breeze through a crappy league. There was no other team who came close to that total.

 

[brett05]

Yes it can. You act like 103 wins is a breeze through a crappy league. There was no other team who came close to that total.

No you can't and why you would argue that you can is just silly/trollish.

 

[fatbeard]

Got a link?

https://theathletic.com/21039/2016/...w-kyle-hendricks-became-a-cy-young-candidate/

 

[Parade_Rain]

No you can't and why you would argue that you can is just silly/trollish.

Ok. Please explain why the best team didn't win close to 100 games in 2016. You are likely the only person in the USA, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Japan who does not think the Cubs were the best team last regular season, so I would suggest you toss the "silly/trollish" comment.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Not an argument that can be had objectively.

Let me understand this for a minute. Are you saying that over a 162 game season that you cannot objectively state why one team or another is the best in baseball? Is this once again because of the vagaries of the schedule? In essence you are saying that there is never an objective way, despite a preponderance of evidence, to make an objective case for the best team in the game in any season?

Let me just lay out the case for the Cubs:

- 1st in offensive WAR in MLB by 5 wins
- 4th in overall pitching WAR
- 1st in total defense including UZR, UZR 150 and total defensive WAR (all of these by overwhelming margins btw)
- first in wins by 8 games over both the Rangers and Nationals
- 1st in run differential

This is just looking at the regular season of course. If you were to debate this there is no argument, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that could make the case for another team. When you say this is subjective (defined as "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.") it is incorrect because this is a case based on evidence. You are correct that there are sometimes cases that are so close that a subjective conclusion is drawn. This is not one of them because the overwhelming statistical evidence supports the Cubs. The definition of objective ("(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.", does not support your argument because the data is so lopsided.

 

[Parade_Rain]

https://theathletic.com/21039/2016/...w-kyle-hendricks-became-a-cy-young-candidate/

Pay wall. Beckdawg already posted that link. Thanks though.