You're the GM (Game)

[brett05]

Carson Cistulli of Fangraphs has posted a Cubs depth chart with fWAR values. It's kind of insane and if my math is right the projection is 97 wins. https://twitter.com/cistulli/status/681879000931786752

That's not how WAR works, but I get it.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

That's not how WAR works, but I get it.

Actually it's exactly how it works. If you add up the Cubs total WAR in 2015 and add it to 48 wins, the accepted win total for a replacement level team, you get 97 wins which is what they won. Honestly I didn't know you could take WAR that literally against an actual record until it was pointed out to me after the season. This chart has the numbers split differently but projects to that same total.

 

[beckdawg]

But see, that's the point that I agree with and I think Beck was saying it was a scouting preference where I don't see it as that. I don't think the Cubs look for those arms because they believe those arms are best; they look there because they're going against market.

This was my point not that 88-92 mph ground ball command guys were the pinnacle of pitching. Basically, what I was going for here is there are a number of teams who would draft a guy who throws hard but has no feel for his pitches later in the draft in the hope that they can fix him. So, in that regard, sure I think the cubs front office does prefer the guys I am talking about. That's a very different debate than talking about say the next Clayton Kershaw who can throw 95 and has command of his pitches. I don't think there's any situation where you wouldn't take a Kershaw like prospect over basically anything else.

I can't immediately think of a name of someone who's a hard thrower with horrible command. I imagine if you just look in rounds 2-5 of previous drafts you can find some guys. Regardless, what I was going for here was you don't see the cubs drafting a ton of guys who throw 95+ just because they throw 95+. For example, if we bring up some of their better prospects, mlb.com has a 50 control on Underwood, Edwards, Cease, and Sands. In other words, they seem to highly value command even over velocity. I'd also suggest that they value ground ball rate on pitchers. To clarify that a bit, I'm not saying they are solely focused on extreme ground ball pitchers but they seem to favor guys who throw 45%+ ground ball rate.

So sure if they have the chance to acquire someone who has good velocity I imagine they would over lower velocity but only in so far as they also possess good command and the ability to keep the ball on the ground at the same time. You just don't see a lot of guys in their minor leagues who have 3.5-4 bb/9 rates as starters. And overall, I find that interesting because if you're able to pull back of the rotation starters out of the 8th-10th rounds for under slot that leaves a lot of draft money to go after position players and or pitching with better tools while still possessing good command. That is in stark contrast to a number of teams who will just draft based on velocity and deal with the attrition of those players never gaining command. In essence, that was my point.

Edit: wanted to clarify one more thing. I say velocity but I probably should make this more a debate about tools vs present ability. As in there are a ton of guys who have ridiculous pitches that they often have no control over. On the other spectrum you have guys with so-so pitches who know how to use them. If you're talking about a scale with those two points the cubs almost always are acquiring players on the lessor tool but know how to use them side. And that also tends to apply to the better pitchers with better tools.

 

[brett05]

Actually it's exactly how it works. If you add up the Cubs total WAR in 2015 and add it to 48 wins, the accepted win total for a replacement level team, you get 97 wins which is what they won. Honestly I didn't know you could take WAR that literally against an actual record until it was pointed out to me after the season. This chart has the numbers split differently but projects to that same total.

It's not how it works. Otherwise, just get yourself a collection of 2 war win guys and win 98 games a year.

Take a look at the 2001 Mariners as the quick example. Whether you use fWAR or bWAR the totals do not come up with their wins. Nor should it. It could, but again it's not how WAR works.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I think the Cubs do value command but there's still no substitute for "stuff". The market inefficiency that we've been talking about is the primary reason the Cubs have stockpiled these command over stuff guys. First the high velocity guys that seem to have the abilities to put everything together go early in the draft where the Cubs have made use of another market inefficiency and targeted right handed power bats instead. Arms are costlier, more prone to injury and take longer to develop there. The ones you can get later in the draft are usually much riskier. Some display poor mechanics that indicate an even greater injury risk, some are guys who were multiple position players in high school and came out as pitchers because of a strong arm but haven't developed enough and project to take even longer to develop and some, quite frankly, have slipped due to mental makeup issues which Theo and company seem to value equal to and in some ways above talent. So due to all those reasons they stockpile character kids who throw 88-92 most with very little shot to become TOR starters. Again in the age where borderline MOR and reliable BOR starters are getting $10 mil annually and above when the hit FA this seems like a solid strategy but none of these guys have quite made MLB yet so it'll be a while before we can see if it works.

Still the fact remains that most TOR starters are 1st round daft picks or the equivalent talent level from IFA signings. The Cubs know this of course. They've made the decision that right handed power and pitchers with solid command are valuable enough to acquire young TOR pitching from other organizations and that their big market money can fill in the rest. Money obviously isn't an issue but so far their plan to trade for top line pitching has not worked. Even the most fervent Theo supporter, which I am btw, will tell you that. It doesn't mean it won't, but so far the guys that would bring that pitching are guys they won't part with. Prior to last season Russell would have brought that and still might and both Bryant and Schwarber could lead packages for those types of pitchers. Guys with remaining question marks like Soler and Baez, who I think the FO thought would bring those guys, aren't enough. The Shelby Miller deal proved that and as much as people would like to believe that trade was an anomaly it probably kept a bunch of guys from getting moved. Only time is going to tell if the Cubs strategy with these low stuff/high command guys is going to pay off.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

It's not how it works. Otherwise, just get yourself a collection of 2 war win guys and win 98 games a year.

The fact that your team of 2 WAR guys shouldn't work, even though it's theoretically possible, should be common sense. WAR is a great value stat but fit and balance are equally important. The fact that you can take a season and win totals and reverse engineer it to the WAR values and come up actual wins shows that the theory works but you still have to have the right balance of offense, defense and other qualities. In reading Fangraphs chart I'm privy to the fact that the Cubs have many of those balance issues resolved and was strictly looking at the sum total of 97 wins. We're baseball fans, my example presumed a solid knowledge base. In actuality Fangraphs is going to publish in today's piece that they're projecting the Cubs as a 100 win team which even adds 3 wins to the total. There are always gray areas and theories often depend on understanding of the subject.

 

[brett05]

The fact that your team of 2 WAR guys shouldn't work, even though it's theoretically possible, should be common sense. WAR is a great value stat but fit and balance are equally important. The fact that you can take a season and win totals and reverse engineer it to the WAR values and come up actual wins shows that the theory works but you still have to have the right balance of offense, defense and other qualities. In reading Fangraphs chart I'm privy to the fact that the Cubs have many of those balance issues resolved and was strictly looking at the sum total of 97 wins. We're baseball fans, my example presumed a solid knowledge base. In actuality Fangraphs is going to publish in today's piece that they're projecting the Cubs as a 100 win team which even adds 3 wins to the total. There are always gray areas and theories often depend on understanding of the subject.

but the totals don't add up. it can but not necessarily. the two are unrelated.

 

[DanTown]

It's not how it works. Otherwise, just get yourself a collection of 2 war win guys and win 98 games a year.

Take a look at the 2001 Mariners as the quick example. Whether you use fWAR or bWAR the totals do not come up with their wins. Nor should it. It could, but again it's not how WAR works.

WAR is a stat that relies on game time played. If you split up
12 hitters with 515 PA
13 pitchers with 112 innings

Here are what 2 WAR players look like (roughly)
Hitter: Chris Coghlan last year (.250/.341/.443)
Pitcher: 110 innings / 3.5 FIP

Basically, you have no bad players. None. You'd probably win 95+ games.

 

[DanTown]

but the totals don't add up. it can but not necessarily. the two are unrelated.

Are you implying that WAR and Wins are not linked together? Maybe not directly linked (i.e X WAR = Y wins) but are you trying to say that counting up WAR wouldn't tell you how good a team was supposed to be (Pythagorean win total).

Cubs total WAR last year - 41.7
Cubs Pythagorean win total - 90
Cubs ACTUAL win total - 97

Basically, the Cubs drastically out preformed their Pythagorean win total. It's one of the reasons that the FO was aggressive even though they won "97 games".

Oakland A's Total WAR - 29.3
Oakland A's Pythagorean Wins - 77
Oakland A's actual wins - 68

Colorado Total WAR - 24.5
Colorado Pythagorean Wins - 71
Colorado Actual Wins - 68

Atlanta Braves Total WAR - 16.8
Atlanta Pythagorean Wins - 61
Atlanta Actual Wins - 67

 

[brett05]

WAR is a stat that relies on game time played. If you split up
12 hitters with 515 PA
13 pitchers with 112 innings

Here are what 2 WAR players look like (roughly)
Hitter: Chris Coghlan last year (.250/.341/.443)
Pitcher: 110 innings / 3.5 FIP

Basically, you have no bad players. None. You'd probably win 95+ games.

I seriously doubt it. WAR is not to be used to determine team wins. It's meant to compare the worth of an individualized player.

 

[brett05]

Are you implying that WAR and Wins are not linked together? Maybe not directly linked (i.e X WAR = Y wins) but are you trying to say that counting up WAR wouldn't tell you how good a team was supposed to be (Pythagorean win total).

Cubs total WAR last year - 41.7
Cubs Pythagorean win total - 90
Cubs ACTUAL win total - 97

Basically, the Cubs drastically out preformed their Pythagorean win total. It's one of the reasons that the FO was aggressive even though they won "97 games".

Oakland A's Total WAR - 29.3
Oakland A's Pythagorean Wins - 77
Oakland A's actual wins - 68

Colorado Total WAR - 24.5
Colorado Pythagorean Wins - 71
Colorado Actual Wins - 68

Atlanta Braves Total WAR - 16.8
Atlanta Pythagorean Wins - 61
Atlanta Actual Wins - 67

I implied nothing. I stated it quite plainly.

 

[DanTown]

I implied nothing. I stated it quite plainly.

Then you're wrong. Of course the two are related due to their obvious dual impact. Let's say you have an ace pitcher. His WAR is so high because he pitches a lot of innings and gives up few runs. Well, that stat also is counted to your overall team stats so now the team is also not giving up runs much either. When teams don't give up runs, they tend to win better than if they gave up more runs.

Of course WAR and Pythagorean win totals are connected as they count the same thing they just count them for an individual (WAR) or the team (Pythagorean).

Explain a scenario where a team has a high WAR total and doesn't win a lot OR has a low WAR win total and does win a lot that isn't explained by "fluky luck in one-run/close games"

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I seriously doubt it. WAR is not to be used to determine team wins. It's meant to compare the worth of an individualized player.

No question but WAR is directly related to wins. If every player on your team is 0 WAR the expectation is defined as 47.7 wins. If you swap one of those players for a 5 WAR player the expectation is then 52.7 wins. If you have a 2 WAR player at 1B and then replace him with a 6 WAR player in theory you should add 4 wins to your total provided nothing else changes. I think your looking for concrete correlations when projections are theoretical exercises to begin with.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

ZiPS projections for the Cubs are out today.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/#more-207395

 

[brett05]

No question but WAR is directly related to wins. If every player on your team is 0 WAR the expectation is defined as 47.7 wins. If you swap one of those players for a 5 WAR player the expectation is then 52.7 wins. If you have a 2 WAR player at 1B and then replace him with a 6 WAR player in theory you should add 4 wins to your total provided nothing else changes. I think your looking for concrete correlations when projections are theoretical exercises to begin with.

That is the expectation of WAR we agree. It doesn't mean that the team doesn't win more or less than that number though. That's why WAR and actual Wins are unrelated. WAR is a way to determine value of a player but not an amount of wins by a team.

 

[DanTown]

That is the expectation of WAR we agree. It doesn't mean that the team doesn't win more or less than that number though. That's why WAR and actual Wins are unrelated. WAR is a way to determine value of a player but not an amount of wins by a team.

Wins are fluky in the stat world. Winning a game 1-0 vs 12-0 is the same but obviously one displays more skill than the other. You're trying to compare stats that aren't really comparable since one is a measure of value (WAR) and one is an actual value (Wins); however, cumulative WAR does connect to higher win totals because WAR and team wins rely on the same stats to derive value. WAR is simply a player stat and wins are a team stat measuring the same event.

Put another way, you can't have a team of high WAR players lose a lot of games and you can't have a lot of low WAR players win a lot of games UNLESS something incredibly fluky happened. I mean, if you think the two have no connection then it shouldn't be hard to find examples of it.

 

[brett05]

Wins are fluky in the stat world. Winning a game 1-0 vs 12-0 is the same but obviously one displays more skill than the other. You're trying to compare stats that aren't really comparable since one is a measure of value (WAR) and one is an actual value (Wins); however, cumulative WAR does connect to higher win totals because WAR and team wins rely on the same stats to derive value. WAR is simply a player stat and wins are a team stat measuring the same event.

Put another way, you can't have a team of high WAR players lose a lot of games and you can't have a lot of low WAR players win a lot of games UNLESS something incredibly fluky happened.

And given it is baseball, fluky is more normal than one thinks. Take your 1-0 and 12-0 examples. All we know are both are wins. Perhaps the 12-0 was a crap fest with flukes. Who knows. All we know is that it's a Win. Without checking and knowing full well as you do that the measure WAR has a porous definition, I doubt a game's war for a team equals a win for a team.

 

[DanTown]

And given it is baseball, fluky is more normal than one thinks. Take your 1-0 and 12-0 examples. All we know are both are wins. Perhaps the 12-0 was a crap fest with flukes. Who knows. All we know is that it's a Win. Without checking and knowing full well as you do that the measure WAR has a porous definition, I doubt a game's war for a team equals a win for a team.

Your doubt is wrong in the macro: if you add up WAR, you're going to get a sense for how many wins a team has. While flukes happen and some are a little bit beyond that, it's fairly close. No stat can EVER predict a win but adding up WAR is as good as any predictive stat.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Your doubt is wrong in the macro: if you add up WAR, you're going to get a sense for how many wins a team has. While flukes happen and some are a little bit beyond that, it's fairly close. No stat can EVER predict a win but adding up WAR is as good as any predictive stat.

This is pretty much all I'm trying to say. It's useful as a predictive tool, nothing more.

 

[brett05]

Your doubt is wrong in the macro: if you add up WAR, you're going to get a sense for how many wins a team has. While flukes happen and some are a little bit beyond that, it's fairly close. No stat can EVER predict a win but adding up WAR is as good as any predictive stat.

That's the point. WAR judges players not teams. Wins judges teams That's what matters. WAR might get you within 15% of being at the total of wins, but that's not the discussion as far as I can see.