MLB 2018 Season

[MarquetteFan94]

We only have about 65 years to play with to avoid the Cubbies drought. Congrats on your successful 3 seasons. Definitely wipes out 108 years.

Like I said, Cubs fans are hilarious.

Like I said....we all know you're not laughing....all of us.

At this rate you'll need all 65.  Yes....the World Series title goes a long way in wiping out those awful years....hope you get to experience one some day....obviously harder for small market, low payroll teams but definitely possible.  Would be a great story.

Enjoy that Miller Park parking lot this summer.  Can you close games?

[Anti-Dentite]

You two need to duke it out, your tired and uninspired "argument" leaves no options.

[wadesworld]

Like I said....we all know you're not laughing....all of us.

At this rate you'll need all 65.  Yes....the World Series title goes a long way in wiping out those awful years....hope you get to experience one some day....obviously harder for small market, low payroll teams but definitely possible.  Would be a great story.

Enjoy that Miller Park parking lot this summer.  Can you close games?

Notre Dame fans and Chicago Cubs fans. One in the same.

[#UnleashSean]

Oh my.

[BM1090]

Oh my.

I know this thread is ruined by the PED/weather talk because all I could focus on was the snow on the bushes. That's crazy. I'm heading down there for the Brewers series the first weekend in June. Hopefully it's almost that empty.

[MerrittsMustache]

Oh my.

Whenever baseball fans claim that a certain team should completely tear it down and rebuild like the Cubs and Astros, they should be shown this picture. Obviously the weather was huge factor, but even the Sox aren't drawing a crowd that embarrassingly small if they're putting a competitive team on the field.

[GGGG]

Whenever baseball fans claim that a certain team should completely tear it down and rebuild like the Cubs and Astros, they should be shown this picture. Obviously the weather was huge factor, but even the Sox aren't drawing a crowd that embarrassingly small if they're putting a competitive team on the field.

So it's better to be mediocre for a decade instead?

[MerrittsMustache]

So it's better to be mediocre for a decade instead?

I didn't say that. My point is that it's easy to say that a total teardown is the best way to go, but there are going to be some lean, ugly, money-losing seasons in there and it may result in an extended championship window or it may result in, like you said, being mediocre for a decade. As an owner, would it be worth it to take that risk of tanking, losing money and hoping for the best or would you rather put butts in the seats, have a competitive team on the field, make some money and hope for the best?

I commend teams for taking the risk of rebuilding from the bottom up but it's not always going to be pretty, it's not always going to work and not all owners are going to want to take that risk.

[MUBurrow]

I didn't say that. My point is that it's easy to say that a total teardown is the best way to go, but there are going to be some lean, ugly, money-losing seasons in there and it may result in an extended championship window or it may result in, like you said, being mediocre for a decade. As an owner, would it be worth it to take that risk of tanking, losing money and hoping for the best or would you rather put butts in the seats, have a competitive team on the field, make some money and hope for the best?

I commend teams for taking the risk of rebuilding from the bottom up but it's not always going to be pretty, it's not always going to work and not all owners are going to want to take that risk.

I can definitely see both sides, but if I were an owner (assuming I see winning as somewhere between a good business proposition and a goal in its own right) I'd probably opt for the teardown. I think if you're anyone other than NYY, Bos, ChC, LAD or LAA (maybe NYM or SF?) the end of the road always ends in what is effectively a teardown. But if you do it on purpose, it doesn't last nearly as long. Granted, you never know, but looking at the White Sox roster and minor league system, I'd much rather be them than Detroit (though its certainly on ownership that they've tanked their payroll THIS much). 

Detroit hung on as long as they possibly could, maybe to their credit, but now they only have the 20th ranked farm system in baseball (their top 2 prospects came in the Verlander and Wilson deals last year, so even that is sort of a teardown), have very little major league depth left from which to deal, owe Miggy $184M through 2023 (GAH!!) and Jordan Zimmerman $74M through 2020.  They project to be very bad for a very long time - sorry Tower.

Now I also have a major issue with how Miami executed their teardown, because I don't think they got good value on the talent they shipped out.  Getting the big contracts out the door has to be benefit 1.B. for teardowns to be in good faith, talent return has to be 1.A.

[Pakuni]

I didn't say that. My point is that it's easy to say that a total teardown is the best way to go, but there are going to be some lean, ugly, money-losing seasons in there and it may result in an extended championship window or it may result in, like you said, being mediocre for a decade. As an owner, would it be worth it to take that risk of tanking, losing money and hoping for the best or would you rather put butts in the seats, have a competitive team on the field, make some money and hope for the best?

I commend teams for taking the risk of rebuilding from the bottom up but it's not always going to be pretty, it's not always going to work and not all owners are going to want to take that risk.

Monday's attendance had way more to do with a) weekday day game in early April and b) weather, than the product on the field. White Sox fans are overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the rebuild and content to live through a couple of very lean years for the expected payout in 2-3 seasons.
Also, don't assume the Sox are losing a lot of money on this. Their payroll ($72 million) is $50 million less than just three seasons ago, when their attendance was not much better.

[wadesworld]

Monday's attendance had way more to do with a) weekday day game in early April and b) weather, than the product on the field. White Sox fans are overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the rebuild and content to live through a couple of very lean years for the expected payout in 2-3 seasons.
Also, don't assume the Sox are losing a lot of money on this. Their payroll ($72 million) is $50 million less than just three seasons ago, when their attendance was not much better.

Yes and yes. I'd guess teams are more likely to lose money when they are going all in than when they are tearing it down and rebuilding.

[MU82]

I think if you're anyone other than NYY, Bos, ChC, LAD or LAA (maybe NYM or SF?) the end of the road always ends in what is effectively a teardown.

The ChC did a total teardown when Theo got there. Won 61, 66 and 73 games his first 3 years.

Even the Yankees went with youth to start the Jeter-Rivera Era. Of course, it took Steinbrenner getting suspended in the early 1990s for that process to start.

[GB Warrior]

The ChC did a total teardown when Theo got there. Won 61, 66 and 73 games his first 3 years.

Even the Yankees went with youth to start the Jeter-Rivera Era. Of course, it took Steinbrenner getting suspended in the early 1990s for that process to start.

The Cubs with Theo at the helm have been a better small-market team than the Brewers were under Melvin. They just had to survive some of their ugly contracts to get there. Part of the reason why Stearns is so refreshing. Everything he does has been in the vein of sustainability.

[buckchuckler]

I'm not usually a fan of wacky stats, but this is pretty irresistible ...

Giancarlo Stanton already has struck out more this season than Joe DiMaggio did in the entire 1941 season, when DiMag had 30 HR, 125 RBI, a 1.083 OPS and a 56-game hitting streak.

In fact, Stanton already had struck out more than DiMag EVEN BEFORE Stanton struck out 5x yesterday!

But I'm guessing that Stanton's 3 HR this season did have better exit velocity than DiMag's homers did. And that's real important.

Why are you putting baseball stuff here?  Isn't this just a Cub/Brewer crap fest?

The perception of K's has changed so much and so quickly it is amazing.  With the focus of baseball seemingly all on power K's are just a necessary evil, well maybe not even an evil at all, the price to play. 

My favorite demonstration here is Nellie Fox.  He struck out 216 times.  In over 10,000 plate appearances.  Aaron Judge struck out 208 times last season in 573 PA.  The game has changed dramatically (yes I know, completely different players with different games, and a terrible comp, just used Judge because he led the league last year).  Fox's career high in K's was 18--18!!!  And that only happened once.  So Stanton has K'd more this year than Fox ever did in a single season.  He had 5 seasons (all with over 600 ABs) where he didn't even reach the teens in K's!  That is crazy!

There should be a middle ground -- Fox never hit more than 6 HRs.  K's are more damaging than other outs in many situations, productive outs are real (the Sox game could have been quite different yesterday with a couple of these).  There are diminishing returns on the K's and who is absorbing them.There were a whole bunch of guys that K'd at a high rate last year, that weren't hitting homers at the rate Judge was.  25 guys K'd at least 150 times last year.  12 of them hit fewer than 30 HRs.  16 had a SLG% below .500.  12 had an OPS below .800 (68 guys had an OPS of .800 or better last year.).  Of the 41 guys that hit 30 or more homers last year, all but 5 had an OPS over .800.  Only 14 of the guys that hit 30 homers K'd more than 150 times, and 7 of those were the guys that tied at 30.  There isn't necessarily a direct correlation between high K's and high power.  The hitter matters.

To me, that kind of says some of the wrong guys are selling out for power.  It is one thing for guys like Judge and Stanton to K a bunch, because there is a return on those K's in the power department. 

K's are fun from a pitching perspective, but I think there will be a correction on this and contact will become more valued and K's will drop.  It will just take some time, the game is cyclical and copycat to a degree... Or maybe it won't and I will look like a dinosaur for thinking this. 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Why are you putting baseball stuff here?  Isn't this just a Cub/Brewer crap fest?

The perception of K's has changed so much and so quickly it is amazing.  With the focus of baseball seemingly all on power K's are just a necessary evil, well maybe not even an evil at all, the price to play. 

My favorite demonstration here is Nellie Fox.  He struck out 216 times.  In over 10,000 plate appearances.  Aaron Judge struck out 208 times last season in 573 PA.  The game has changed dramatically (yes I know, completely different players with different games, and a terrible comp, just used Judge because he led the league last year).

There should be a middle ground.  K's are more damaging than other outs in many situations, productive outs are real (the Sox game could have been quite different yesterday with a couple of these).  There are diminishing returns on the K's and who is absorbing them.There were a whole bunch of guys that K'd at a high rate last year, that weren't hitting homers at the rate Judge was.  25 guys K'd at least 150 times last year.  12 of them hit fewer than 30 HRs.  16 had a SLG% below .500.  12 had an OPS below .800 (68 guys had an OPS of .800 or better last year.).  Of the 41 guys that hit 30 or more homers last year, all but 5 had an OPS over .800.  Only 14 of the guys that hit 30 homers K'd more than 150 times, and 7 of those were the guys that tied at 30.  There isn't necessarily a direct correlation between high K's and high power.  The hitter matters.

To me, that kind of says some of the wrong guys are selling out for power.  It is one thing for guys like Judge and Stanton to K a bunch, because there is a return on those K's in the power department. 

K's are fun from a pitching perspective, but I think there will be a correction on this and contact will become more valued and K's will drop.  It will just take some time, the game is cyclical and copycat to a degree... Or maybe it won't and I will look like a dinosaur for thinking this.

Tony Gwynn is another amazing strikeout stats guy.

[buckchuckler]

Whenever baseball fans claim that a certain team should completely tear it down and rebuild like the Cubs and Astros, they should be shown this picture. Obviously the weather was huge factor, but even the Sox aren't drawing a crowd that embarrassingly small if they're putting a competitive team on the field.

Not that the draw would have been huge either way, but the game start time was changed Sunday from a 7:10 start to a 1:10 to accommodate the weather.   

[MU82]

Why are you putting baseball stuff here?  Isn't this just a Cub/Brewer crap fest?

The perception of K's has changed so much and so quickly it is amazing.  With the focus of baseball seemingly all on power K's are just a necessary evil, well maybe not even an evil at all, the price to play. 

My favorite demonstration here is Nellie Fox.  He struck out 216 times.  In over 10,000 plate appearances.  Aaron Judge struck out 208 times last season in 573 PA.  The game has changed dramatically (yes I know, completely different players with different games, and a terrible comp, just used Judge because he led the league last year).  Fox's career high in K's was 18--18!!!  And that only happened once.  So Stanton has K'd more this year than Fox ever did in a single season.  He had 5 seasons (all with over 600 ABs) where he didn't even reach the teens in K's!  That is crazy!

There should be a middle ground -- Fox never hit more than 6 HRs.  K's are more damaging than other outs in many situations, productive outs are real (the Sox game could have been quite different yesterday with a couple of these).  There are diminishing returns on the K's and who is absorbing them.There were a whole bunch of guys that K'd at a high rate last year, that weren't hitting homers at the rate Judge was.  25 guys K'd at least 150 times last year.  12 of them hit fewer than 30 HRs.  16 had a SLG% below .500.  12 had an OPS below .800 (68 guys had an OPS of .800 or better last year.).  Of the 41 guys that hit 30 or more homers last year, all but 5 had an OPS over .800.  Only 14 of the guys that hit 30 homers K'd more than 150 times, and 7 of those were the guys that tied at 30.  There isn't necessarily a direct correlation between high K's and high power.  The hitter matters.

To me, that kind of says some of the wrong guys are selling out for power.  It is one thing for guys like Judge and Stanton to K a bunch, because there is a return on those K's in the power department. 

K's are fun from a pitching perspective, but I think there will be a correction on this and contact will become more valued and K's will drop.  It will just take some time, the game is cyclical and copycat to a degree... Or maybe it won't and I will look like a dinosaur for thinking this.

I enjoyed reading about those Fox stats. Sure, none of it really "translates," but that doesn't make it uninteresting.

The reason I really like the DiMag stats is he was a great power hitter. I mean, he was a great all-around hitter, sure, but he had a ton of power. And he didn't have to strike out 200x a year to put his power into gear.

Must have been all the analytics he tirelessly studied until he got his launch angle just right!

[buckchuckler]

The Cubs with Theo at the helm have been a better small-market team than the Brewers were under Melvin.

I guess I haven't seen Theo acting like a small market GM.  Signings like Edwin Jackson, Jon Lester, Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist, Yu Darvish, Tyler Chatwood and even John Lackey are not moves a small market team would or even could make.

A small market team would also probably not have traded away the prospect capital to acquire guys like Wilson and Quintana last season as the team control is much more valuable to teams that don't have big free agent budgets.  Nor would a small market team have been able to eat some of the money the Cubs did to get rid of certain guys.

The Cubs are the big boys financially, and they know it, and they have been acting the part.  Big signings weren't always a part of the strategy, but it is clear they have been for the last few years.

[buckchuckler]

I enjoyed reading about those Fox stats. Sure, none of it really "translates," but that doesn't make it uninteresting.

The reason I really like the DiMag stats is he was a great power hitter. I mean, he was a great all-around hitter, sure, but he had a ton of power. And he didn't have to strike out 200x a year to put his power into gear.

Must have been all the analytics he tirelessly studied until he got his launch angle just right!

Absolutely.  He is a great example.  A couple of my other favorite examples (a couple of Sox of course) are Magglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee.  Neither of those guys ever K'd 100 times in their careers.  Magglio is actually a guy that sacrificed power later in his career to maintain his average. 

[GB Warrior]

I guess I haven't seen Theo acting like a small market GM.  Signings like Edwin Jackson, Jon Lester, Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist, Yu Darvish, Tyler Chatwood and even John Lackey are not moves a small market team would or even could make.

A small market team would also probably not have traded away the prospect capital to acquire guys like Wilson and Quintana last season as the team control is much more valuable to teams that don't have big free agent budgets.  Nor would a small market team have been able to eat some of the money the Cubs did to get rid of certain guys.

The Cubs are the big boys financially, and they know it, and they have been acting the part.  Big signings weren't always a part of the strategy, but it is clear they have been for the last few years.

This is fair - I guess i was referring to the "tear down" where they could shed some of the bad salaries of the past (Soriano?) and reset while the young talent was still young and cheap. They're certainly going for it now with Darvish, Lester, Heyward, and it's an amplified version of 'going for it' than what a small-market team would do. And a big market team doesn't think about baseball in terms of cycles of contending and rebuilding, but that's how the Cubs have operated.

They've been relatively disciplined, but their moves this offseason is a sign that they know their window is now while Bryant, Rizzo, Addi, Schwarber, Contreras and Baez are cheap. When they (esp the first two) come due, this team will change dramatically.

[#UnleashSean]

I'm not sure if a team in the third largest city in the US can qualify as a small market team even if they play in a neighborhood

[MU82]

Absolutely.  He is a great example.  A couple of my other favorite examples (a couple of Sox of course) are Magglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee.  Neither of those guys ever K'd 100 times in their careers.  Magglio is actually a guy that sacrificed power later in his career to maintain his average.

Yep, they weren't whiffers. And to talk about another recent guy ...

When I was going a little research on the Hall of Fame candidates, what really jumped out at me was how little Vlad Guerrero struck out.

Here was a big-time power guy with two 40 HR seasons and six 30 HR seasons, averaged 34 HR and 113 RBI per 162 games, and had a reputation of being a guy who never met a pitch he didn't like to swing at.

Nevertheless, his career high in strikeouts was 95 - in his first season as a full-time player - and he only had one other season with more than 80.

Batted .318, OPS .931. Damn right he's a Hall of Famer ... unless his exit velocity wasn't quite up to par.

[MUBurrow]

I'm generally as pro-sabermetric a guy as you'll find. I'm typically incredulous that anyone could call themselves anything else - after all, its information, and the more of it you have, the better positioned you are to make smart decisions.

But that the information is only valuable inasmuch as it is predictive of certain desired outcomes. I think launch angle, exit velocity, et. al. is useful, but it has to be contextualized.  The desired outcome those things are measuring - likelihood of a home run - has to be balanced with the associated cost. Does an increase in launch angle or exit velocity correlate with higher K%? What does a change in launch angle do to a BABIP?  I've got about 20 fangraphs articles languishing in my "to read" bookmarks pile, so I'm sure guys much smarter than me have covered this. But to to the uneducated observer, its beginning to seem like talent evaluators are falling in love with and maybe overvalue advanced power stats.

[CTWarrior]

It's a different game now.  DiMaggio wasn't facing guys throwing 95 and he certainly wasn't facing three or four fresh guys over the course of a game each throwing in the mid to uppers 90s.  It is hard to string together hits against these types of pitchers so you have to sell out for power because one bomb after a walk is more likely to happen than a bunch of singles.

I guarantee if Stanton was facing the same guy (who doesn't touch the high 80s on the radar) four or five times a game he wouldn't be striking out a ton either. 

I don't know what they can do about it, but three true outcomes baseball, even if it is effective, is dull to watch.

[Jockey]

I'm generally as pro-sabermetric a guy as you'll find. I'm typically incredulous that anyone could call themselves anything else - after all, its information, and the more of it you have, the better positioned you are to make smart decisions.

But that the information is only valuable inasmuch as it is predictive of certain desired outcomes. I think launch angle, exit velocity, et. al. is useful, but it has to be contextualized.  The desired outcome those things are measuring - likelihood of a home run - has to be balanced with the associated cost. Does an increase in launch angle or exit velocity correlate with higher K%? What does a change in launch angle do to a BABIP?  I've got about 20 fangraphs articles languishing in my "to read" bookmarks pile, so I'm sure guys much smarter than me have covered this. But to to the uneducated observer, its beginning to seem like talent evaluators are falling in love with and maybe overvalue advanced power stats.

Great post, Burrow. My thoughts are similar when it come to analytics. I think it may be getting overplayed at times (talking about you, Gabe Kapler), but it is a necessary part of today's game. As you said, more info is better.

Having said that, I don't know what to think about launch angle. I understand why guys want to maximize the proper angle - but we don't really know if it is what is necessarily driving the HR boom. The emphasis on launch angle has mirrored the juiced ball. Which is more responsible for the surge in HRs? I think it is the juiced ball more than guys adjusting launch angle and we will end up with tons of flyouts to the warning track if we ever go back to the old ball.?


Would be interested in your (or anyone else's) opinion.