GatewayRedbirds.com

Popeye_Card wrote:Since 2010, the Giants and Royals have combined to win 4 World Series--two franchises that I doubt many people would have described as overly enlightened/SABR-smart. Two more were won by the Cubs and Astros--big market tankers. Another was won by the Red Sox, a big market big salary team. The final championship was won by the Cardinals, who kinda fluked their way there in the last season with a generationally great player.

I'm not sure I have a real point here. Other than "fun to watch", "smart", and "winning" don't always seem to correlate very well. Winning teams are generally fun to watch, but the formula to get there is a bit foggier than we might think.

While I can appreciate the desire not to overreact to small samples, I think looking that far back has the potential to miss trends that are accelerating. Jim Hendry was an MLB GM as recently as 2011. He, or more importantly, anyone with his beliefs and/or resume, basically have zero chance of becoming a GM today. Here's the leaderboard for wins by team the last 3 years: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx? ... 0&sort=2,d

How far down do you have to go to find a team that isn't extremely process and efficiency driven? I start thinking 'maybe' at the Blue Jays(who are currently in no-mans land for future competitiveness) and then yes at the Royals(done competing for the forseeable future), and other yes's are basically at the midpoint(Orioles, Mets). Sure some have higher payrolls than others and don't agree on *everything*, but there's very much a similar way of thinking among teams who are actually successful. And if everyone starts thinking in a similar way, and that way is actually an effective manner of approaching team building, then the most successful teams are going to be those who are able to do that better than others(e.g. payroll discrepancies, high draft picks)

Popeye_Card wrote:Since 2010, the Giants and Royals have combined to win 4 World Series--two franchises that I doubt many people would have described as overly enlightened/SABR-smart. Two more were won by the Cubs and Astros--big market tankers. Another was won by the Red Sox, a big market big salary team. The final championship was won by the Cardinals, who kinda fluked their way there in the last season with a generationally great player.

I'm not sure I have a real point here. Other than "fun to watch", "smart", and "winning" don't always seem to correlate very well. Winning teams are generally fun to watch, but the formula to get there is a bit foggier than we might think.

A) Using World Series titles as your sole mark of success is probably too narrow of a qualifier.

B) 2010 was basically an age ago in terms of baseball. Things have changed pretty drastically in just seven years. We regularly have our own Cardinals broadcasters (perhaps mockingly at times) referencing things like WAR and launch angle. That's a huge change.

C) All of those organizations have benefited from the sabermetric revolution. They may not be on the cutting edge (although you could probably argue that the Giants were at points), but they're far smarter than they were twenty or thirty years ago. The point is that stats are not the property of the Moneyball Athletics anymore, and that we can't rely on the big clubs to create abhorrent market inefficiencies by overpaying veterans (as seen in this offseason).

D) I don't think it makes sense to completely conflate the tendencies of a manager with his FO. Obviously, they put him and kept him in charge, but I don't think Ned Yost's stupidity necessarily reflects a lack of statistical insight in how the FO put together the roster for him.

E) Some of those organizations are combining various methodologies. The Astros tanked and then utilized various statistical insights to bring the best out in their players. E.g. the curveball usage of their pitching staff.

F) People seem to have taken the book/movie Moneyball in an extremely limited way and interpreted that as what all "Moneyball" was. All "Moneyball" really was amounted to was finding a group of players with some kind of undervalued/cheap stats and then creating a style of baseball based around that. For Oakland, it was amazing pitching with some cheap, chunky bad defenders who got on base and hit the occasional dingers. For the Royals, they went with extraordinary defense, super-plus speed and then a lights-out relief system that let them close out tight games. Both are still functionally a kind of stats-oriented "Moneyball." The latter may not be as "pure" sabermetrics as something like the As or Rays or whoever, but it's still a smarter brand of baseball than what many were doing for decades.

Fat Strat wrote: I would love to be sitting just behind the Cubs today, but with the ability to dream a little on what could be.

I think if you choose to ignore ZiPS projections and the like, you could make a case where we *are* just behind the Cubs today.

We've covered the Cubs' advantages at length. Bryant and Rizzo, Contreras, Russell, adding Darvish and a full season of Quintana to what was a pretty good staff, Schwarber will almost certainly be better with the bat, and Morrow was added to the bullpen. But let's work back from the opposite direction. They only won 92 games last season. They're subtracting Arietta and Davis. Quintana and Hendricks should be at the peaks of their aging curves, but the rest of the rotation is sliding down the backside. If Morrow is the plan at closer, that's a risk with upside, but a risk nonetheless. I think their lineup has lost depth since the 2016 team. They were 2nd in the NL in runs scored last season, but I just don't love the lineup outside of the peaks.

Meanwhile we've beat up the Cardinals pretty well. Closer is a question mark. There's likely to be a dropoff from Lynn to Mikolas. We're probably relying a bit too much on continued success from Pham, DeJong, and Gyorko that might not be sustainable. However I think there's also a potentially great team buried here. As we've discussed, if Pham is for real, the OF is outstanding. Ozuna is likely the second-best offensive player that changed uniforms this offseason (until Martinez signs). If DeJong, Wong, and Gyorko maintain last year's production the lineup is pretty damn stacked. On the pitching side, Martinez is approaching his peak. Wacha and Weaver should be solid. Wainwright can't be much worse. Mikolas is a wild card. Reyes will be a benefit out of the bullpen. Flaherty is a good fall-back option. Who knows what to make of the bullpen.

I guess here's my point. I feel like we're taking the projected win totals for these teams and pessimistically applying a beta distribution to both--but giving a high floor to the Cubs, and a low ceiling for the Cardinals. I'm not expecting the Cardinals to be better than the Cubs this season, but I think we're closer than we give ourselves credit for. I also don't think a Hosmer makes the difference anywhere but on paper, which would probably qualify as a stupid move (long-term, high-dollar commitment at a position where we wouldn't see that large of upgrade). I wouldn't say Arietta is a stupid move for the Cardinals. That would be a calculated risk, significantly upgrading 1 of 5 rotation spots for at least a couple of seasons, barring an injury or collapse.

I just don't feel we're that close at all. We're in a decent to good position for a wild card, and ownership is fine with that. To me, that's disappointing.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I just don't feel we're that close at all. We're in a decent to good position for a wild card, and ownership is fine with that. To me, that's disappointing.

We probably aren't close. But I do think the Cubs haven't made significant steps forward this offseason, given what they've lost.

the gap between the two teams by several projection systems:

PECOTA: 8 wins, 1 win greater than the gap between the Cardinals and Pirates
Steamer (via Fangraphs depth charts): 6 wins, 1 win less than gap between the Cardinals and Mets
ZiPS (via depth chart graphics on FG): 11 wins, 2 wins greater than the gap between the Cardinals and Reds

Objective systems clearly see a substantial gap between the two teams. It doesn't mean it's some impossibility that the Cardinals win the division, anyone who might say that is not understanding what projection systems are trying to do, but there's a clear difference in those two teams that goes beyond being a fan that's rounding up or down across a dozen spots.

Popeye_Card wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I just don't feel we're that close at all. We're in a decent to good position for a wild card, and ownership is fine with that. To me, that's disappointing.

We probably aren't close. But I do think the Cubs haven't made significant steps forward this offseason, given what they've lost.

Darvish was pretty significant. And I think their buckshot bullpen approach this offseason was probably better than our buckshot bullpen approach.

I really don't mind being a team that is chasing the Wild Card. Maybe I've become unrealistic after experiencing two championships that came through the Wild Card while not experiencing a playoff drought greater than three years this millennium. And I could be too jaded by a 100-win team that crushed the division but won just one game in the playoffs.

I just don't care that much about chasing down the Cubs, especially after the seasons their fans had to endure to get where they are. What I want to see is a team that is competing for the playoffs every year and is willing to make big moves at the trade deadline if all the things you need to go right are working out. Where I draw the line - which I recognize is very different from many here - is when the club isn't even trying to sniff the Wild Card or won't make a win-now move in July to go from pretender to contender.

My biggest disappointment is not with signings like Mikolas and Norris or similar incremental additions that fail to close the gap on a division leader. It is with last year's deadline, where they neither really tried to win now or win later.

Just spitballing two of those Cubbie changes as examples:

If you exchange 2017 Arrieta for 2017 Darvish, you grab a difference of around 1.1 wins. The projections say it's only around 0.8 in 2018, but that's still a solid upgrade that might actually be more significant if Arrieta is on a larger downward trend.

If you exchange 2017 Davis for 2017 Morrow, you grab a difference of around 0.6 wins. The projections say Davis should be better this year though, but it's essentially a straight exchange with a difference of around 0.1 wins.

I mean, they're not gigantic upgrades, but they didn't really need to be since they were already significantly ahead of the rest of the NLC. The Cardinals are the ones chasing here, and as of right now the only positions that the Cardinals are actually better than the Cubs is probably CF and LF.

That's kind of the whole point, the Cubs aren't really competing with the Cards. They're competing with the Dodgers, Astros, Yankees, Red Sox types. The fact that the Cubs were able to stay right around where they were last year without paying much else other than cash (i.e., not having to dip into their very drained system) is a huge success for them.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:the gap between the two teams by several projection systems:

PECOTA: 8 wins, 1 win greater than the gap between the Cardinals and Pirates
Steamer (via Fangraphs depth charts): 6 wins, 1 win less than gap between the Cardinals and Mets
ZiPS (via depth chart graphics on FG): 11 wins, 2 wins greater than the gap between the Cardinals and Reds

Objective systems clearly see a substantial gap between the two teams. It doesn't mean it's some impossibility that the Cardinals win the division, anyone who might say that is not understanding what projection systems are trying to do, but there's a clear difference in those two teams that goes beyond being a fan that's rounding up or down across a dozen spots.

Yep. But returning to the point of all of the focus on sabermetrics and projections sapping some of the fun out of the game, I don't mind chasing the Cubs from behind and I think there's potential there to close the gap--however large it may be.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I just don't feel we're that close at all. We're in a decent to good position for a wild card, and ownership is fine with that. To me, that's disappointing.

We probably aren't close. But I do think the Cubs haven't made significant steps forward this offseason, given what they've lost.

Darvish was pretty significant. And I think their buckshot bullpen approach this offseason was probably better than our buckshot bullpen approach.

They also lost Arrieta and Davis. Who are more significant than the Cardinals' losses.

The Cardinals have added the best player between the two this offseason in Ozuna, IMO. Obviously that doesn't close the gap by itself, but I don't feel like the Cubs have had a better overall offseason than the Cardinals have. They certainly started in a better position.

And before you say it, yes it is disappointing that the Cardinals clearly have the opportunity and ability to do more, and they haven't.