IST: Cubs @ Padres

TC in Mississippi said:

I didn't say you were wrong, I said you overstated it. The NL is probably a little more competitive than you had thought and the AL just a tad less competitive.

Click to expand...

I think I recall thinking that there were 8 bad teams in the NL and the Marlins are my outlier. I also thought there would be no competition for the Cubs and there hasn't been in the NL Central. Don't recall anyone else thinking as much. I had the Giants doing better at this point. The AL has been even more competitive than I had thought originally really. But not as good as I had hoped if that makes sense.

brett05 said:

Not really. The NL as I predicted has the halves and the have nots. When you count IL record which I also predicted it seems to fit my narrative pretty well. In fairness I also predicted that the power rankings would be dominated at the top by NL teams which it is.

Click to expand...

Not sure that's how I'd phrase it. Think the NL has more teams that effectively realized they were shit and as such made offseason decisions based on that. For example, it's pretty obvious Atlanta was selling everything not bolted down on their team going into 2016. Cincy is another case of this selling Frazier and Chapman. SD was in sell mode in the offseason and then later even more at the deadline. Nobody gets points for winning 80-85 games most seasons since it usually is 88-90 wins to get in the wild card.

Ultimately I don't see the point in citing IL as proof that one league is better than another for several reasons. The worst 4 teams in the NL went 21-46 in IL. The NL vs AL record is 118-143 overall meaning the other 11 NL teams went 97-97. Those 4 teams consist of the aforementioned 3 teams who sold off in the offseason and Arizona who has been comically bad after trying to buy and paying way to much in the offseason.

Additionally, if the argument is the NL has a higher range of teams(ie higher highs and lower lows) I still don't see that as being a negative. You are crowing one team at the end of the year and the top 2 teams in baseball right now are the cubs and Washington. Cleveland, and Texas are just a half game back of Washington but it's really not even close between anyone and the cubs right now. AL probably has a better wild card race but if you're pitting the division winners against each other right now you have a 71-54 tie in the AL east, a 72-52 Cleveland in the Central and a 73-53 West with Texas with the second wild card being the 69-56 O's. In the NL, you have the 73-52 Nats in the East, the cubs dominating in the central at 80-45 and the dodgers at 70-55 with the 2 wild cards being SF at 68-57 and STL at 66-58.

At the end of the day, comparing the two league is fruitless because baseball has an unbalanced schedule. Teams in the NL central are going to look a lot worse record wise because they play the best team in baseball 19 times just like teams in the NL west are probably appear stronger getting 19 games vs the terrible Dbacks and pads.

beckdawg said:

Not sure that's how I'd phrase it. Think the NL has more teams that effectively realized they were shit and as such made offseason decisions based on that. For example, it's pretty obvious Atlanta was selling everything not bolted down on their team going into 2016. Cincy is another case of this selling Frazier and Chapman. SD was in sell mode in the offseason and then later even more at the deadline. Nobody gets points for winning 80-85 games most seasons since it usually is 88-90 wins to get in the wild card.

Ultimately I don't see the point in citing IL as proof that one league is better than another for several reasons. The worst 4 teams in the NL went 21-46 in IL. The NL vs AL record is 118-143 overall meaning the other 11 NL teams went 97-97. Those 4 teams consist of the aforementioned 3 teams who sold off in the offseason and Arizona who has been comically bad after trying to buy and paying way to much in the offseason.

Additionally, if the argument is the NL has a higher range of teams(ie higher highs and lower lows) I still don't see that as being a negative. You are crowing one team at the end of the year and the top 2 teams in baseball right now are the cubs and Washington. Cleveland, and Texas are just a half game back of Washington but it's really not even close between anyone and the cubs right now. AL probably has a better wild card race but if you're pitting the division winners against each other right now you have a 71-54 tie in the AL east, a 72-52 Cleveland in the Central and a 73-53 West with Texas with the second wild card being the 69-56 O's. In the NL, you have the 73-52 Nats in the East, the cubs dominating in the central at 80-45 and the dodgers at 70-55 with the 2 wild cards being SF at 68-57 and STL at 66-58.

At the end of the day, comparing the two league is fruitless because baseball has an unbalanced schedule. Teams in the NL central are going to look a lot worse record wise because they play the best team in baseball 19 times just like teams in the NL west are probably appear stronger getting 19 games vs the terrible Dbacks and pads.

Click to expand...

The Cubs have a great deal with the 97-97 for the other 11 teams in IL play.

I disagree on it being pointless but a balanced schedule would go a long way to helping sort this out. I think Both Cleveland and Texas would give fits to the NL winner.

To be fair, I'd have an issue with anyone saying any team this year is the best team in baseball. Probably in just about any year it's a phrase to "sell papers."

brett05 said:

I think Both Cleveland and Texas would give fits to the NL winner.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on Cleveland as they have the kind of team that does win playoff games and their Pythagorean record says that they are exactly what their actual record says they are as the 2 match at 72 wins. The Rangers I disagree with. In contrast their actual record is 10 full games better than the 63 wins they're Pythagorean record suggests. They're starting pitching is 20th by WAR, the relievers 26th with the total staff coming in at 24th. They have a decent offense but not enough to make up for the pitching. After Cole Hamels and the resurgent Yu Darvish there isn't another guy you would really want to trust in a playoff game. In contrast the Cubs are 5 games behind their expected win totals, the Nationals are 4 games behind theirs and the Dodgers and Giants right at their expected marks.

TC in Mississippi said:

I agree with you on Cleveland as they have the kind of team that does win playoff games and their Pythagorean record says that they are exactly what their actual record says they are as the 2 match at 72 wins. The Rangers I disagree with. In contrast their actual record is 10 full games better than the 63 wins they're Pythagorean record suggests. They're starting pitching is 20th by WAR, the relievers 26th with the total staff coming in at 24th. They have a decent offense but not enough to make up for the pitching. After Cole Hamels and the resurgent Yu Darvish there isn't another guy you would really want to trust in a playoff game. In contrast the Cubs are 5 games ahead of their expected win totals, the Nationals 4 games and the Dodgers and Giants right at their expected marks.

Click to expand...

The Cubs are actually trailing their expected win total (underperforming).

brett05 said:

The Cubs have a great deal with the 97-97 for the other 11 teams in IL play.

I disagree on it being pointless but a balanced schedule would go a long way to helping sort this out. I think Both Cleveland and Texas would give fits to the NL winner.

To be fair, I'd have an issue with anyone saying any team this year is the best team in baseball. Probably in just about any year it's a phrase to "sell papers."

Click to expand...

The cubs are 7 games up on the nearest team. If that doesn't separate you as "the best team in baseball" then I don't know what ever would. If you're talking 3-4 games then sure I can see an argument that those teams are on a similar tier but 7 games is clearly far and away better. And it's not just record. The cubs expected win loss is 87-38 because they are largely at the top in every category you want to choose. Defensively both DRS and UZR have them well in front. They are almost a full run in front of the nationals in starter ERA(2.85 vs 3.54). They are second to the red sox in wRC+ though to be fair the cubs are usually batting a pitcher. If you remove pitchers they are both tied at 115 wRC+. About the only knock on the team is their bullpen and even that is above average with the 13th best reliever ERA.

As for the cubs having a great deal to do with the 97-97 IL record, sure but we're talking 13-4. Those bottom 4 teams do far more damage than the cubs make up for. For example the worst 5 IL records in each league are as follows

AL
A's - 5-12
Angels - 6-11
Yankees - 7-10
Twins - 8-9
KC - 9-9
Total - 35-51

NL
Pads - 5-12
Dbacks - 5-12
Reds - 5-11
Miami - 5-10
Atlanta - 6-11
Total - 26-56

In other words, the bottom 5 of the AL is up 9 wins and 5 losses on the NL or +14 of the +25 the AL is up overall. Also, I think an argument can be made the IL in general favors AL teams during the season because of roster issues. Most NL teams don't have a great hitter sitting on the bench to DH and because they play 142 NL only games(plus I believe 10 NL IL games) generally construct their bench with guys who are decent defenders so you can double switch. Obviously for the vast majority of the season that makes sense. And for the 10 games a year you play in AL stadiums you're unlikely to make a roster move just to bring up a DH. On the flip side of that, the supposed down side for AL teams is you now have a David Ortiz type guy having to play the field or sit. But the thing is it's hard to negatively impact a team in 90 innings in the field. The worst defender last year with qualified innings were only like -16 DRS over 925 innings. So, over 90 innings you're talking maybe 1-2 runs on average and that's assuming you don't just time their days off to avoid NL stadiums. As such, not having to make roster moves would appear to favor AL teams overall. In the playoffs however, NL teams can specifically set up their roster for individual series plus having to only carry 4 starters allows them more flexibility.

fatbeard said:

The Cubs are actually trailing their expected win total (underperforming).

Click to expand...

That's what I was saying, my wording was misleading. The Cubs are trailing their expected win total by games and the Nationals are trailing theirs by 4. I made the change in the original post.

beckdawg said:

The cubs are 7 games up on the nearest team. If that doesn't separate you as "the best team in baseball" then I don't know what ever would. If you're talking 3-4 games then sure I can see an argument that those teams are on a similar tier but 7 games is clearly far and away better. And it's not just record. The cubs expected win loss is 87-38 because they are largely at the top in every category you want to choose. Defensively both DRS and UZR have them well in front. They are almost a full run in front of the nationals in starter ERA(2.85 vs 3.54). They are second to the red sox in wRC+ though to be fair the cubs are usually batting a pitcher. If you remove pitchers they are both tied at 115 wRC+. About the only knock on the team is their bullpen and even that is above average with the 13th best reliever ERA.

As for the cubs having a great deal to do with the 97-97 IL record, sure but we're talking 13-4. Those bottom 4 teams do far more damage than the cubs make up for. For example the worst 5 IL records in each league are as follows

AL
A's - 5-12
Angels - 6-11
Yankees - 7-10
Twins - 8-9
KC - 9-9
Total - 35-51

NL
Pads - 5-12
Dbacks - 5-12
Reds - 5-11
Miami - 5-10
Atlanta - 6-11
Total - 26-56

In other words, the bottom 5 of the AL is up 9 wins and 5 losses on the NL or +14 of the +25 the AL is up overall. Also, I think an argument can be made the IL in general favors AL teams during the season because of roster issues. Most NL teams don't have a great hitter sitting on the bench to DH and because they play 142 NL only games(plus I believe 10 NL IL games) generally construct their bench with guys who are decent defenders so you can double switch. Obviously for the vast majority of the season that makes sense. And for the 10 games a year you play in AL stadiums you're unlikely to make a roster move just to bring up a DH. On the flip side of that, the supposed down side for AL teams is you now have a David Ortiz type guy having to play the field or sit. But the thing is it's hard to negatively impact a team in 90 innings in the field. The worst defender last year with qualified innings were only like -16 DRS over 925 innings. So, over 90 innings you're talking maybe 1-2 runs on average and that's assuming you don't just time their days off to avoid NL stadiums. As such, not having to make roster moves would appear to favor AL teams overall. In the playoffs however, NL teams can specifically set up their roster for individual series plus having to only carry 4 starters allows them more flexibility.

Click to expand...

This is actually the exact opposite. IL play always favors the NL. In NL parks, the AL benches their DH or loses a regular so that the DH can "play" the field. In the AL parks the NL loses the pitcher and replaces that spot with a much better hitter. In both cases the advantage is given to the NL. On top of that, while the AL has to budget for a DH, the NL teams don't and thus can use that money elsewhere which is another advantage for the NL. Given those facts one would logically think that the NL should be better. Thru the years they aren't (based on IL play) which is why generally speaking the AL is a better league IMO.

brett05 said:

This is actually the exact opposite. IL play always favors the NL. In NL parks, the AL benches their DH or loses a regular so that the DH can "play" the field. In the AL parks the NL loses the pitcher and replaces that spot with a much better hitter. In both cases the advantage is given to the NL. On top of that, while the AL has to budget for a DH, the NL teams don't and thus can use that money elsewhere which is another advantage for the NL. Given those facts one would logically think that the NL should be better. Thru the years they aren't (based on IL play) which is why generally speaking the AL is a better league IMO.

Click to expand...

While your facts are correct I think you draw some wrong conclusions in that both leagues have disadvantages in IL play because the teams are built for the rules of their leagues. There's a lot of nuance that you're simply not taking into account.

Do we really even need Strop at this point? Rondon will be fine in October. With a 3 man rotation, using Hendricks or Hammel in a 7th inning situation might be a better option than Strop anyway.

didshereallysaythat said:

Do we really even need Strop at this point? Rondon will be fine in October. With a 3 man rotation, using Hendricks or Hammel in a 7th inning situation might be a better option than Strop anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes, ideally they'd want Strop as a 7th inning set up man. In the meantime both Grimm and Edwards will continue to get opportunities if Strop can't do it. Hendricks would absolutely not profile well as a set up man and while Hammel potentially could you'd be asking a guy who had started all year to appear in high leverage situations despite not doing that all year long. Ideally you want to throw heat from the 7th through the 9th and that would be Strop, Rondon and Chapman in a perfect world.

brett05 said:

This is actually the exact opposite. IL play always favors the NL. In NL parks, the AL benches their DH or loses a regular so that the DH can "play" the field. In the AL parks the NL loses the pitcher and replaces that spot with a much better hitter. In both cases the advantage is given to the NL. On top of that, while the AL has to budget for a DH, the NL teams don't and thus can use that money elsewhere which is another advantage for the NL. Given those facts one would logically think that the NL should be better. Thru the years they aren't (based on IL play) which is why generally speaking the AL is a better league IMO.

Click to expand...

Almost every year the AL has had a better record in IL play

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=7nGHF

The only years the NL have even broke even or better were in 1997, 1999, and 2002, and 2003. 4 years out of 19. You can disagree with the logic but the numbers tell a different story.

See also: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nl-is-finally-winning-interleague-play-for-now/

brett05 said:

This is actually the exact opposite. IL play always favors the NL. In NL parks, the AL benches their DH or loses a regular so that the DH can "play" the field. In the AL parks the NL loses the pitcher and replaces that spot with a much better hitter. In both cases the advantage is given to the NL. On top of that, while the AL has to budget for a DH, the NL teams don't and thus can use that money elsewhere which is another advantage for the NL. Given those facts one would logically think that the NL should be better. Thru the years they aren't (based on IL play) which is why generally speaking the AL is a better league IMO.

Click to expand...

No, IL play favors the home team because when a NL team goes to an AL park and gets to add a DH, they're typically adding replacement level hitters that the team didn't spend a ton of capital on while AL teams have DH's that are vastly better hitters because teams spend more on them. Most NL teams are not like the Cubs and running around with legit hitters on their bench.

And the budget for the NL means they have to spend more money on position players because they have to play everyone way more than a AL team has to. AL teams do not have to worry about balanced players and can carry more more specialized players (i.e very good hitters who can't field and fielders who can't hit) in ways a NL team simply cannot afford to do.

beckdawg said:

Almost every year the AL has had a better record in IL play

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=7nGHF

The only years the NL have even broke even or better were in 1997, 1999, and 2002, and 2003. 4 years out of 19. You can disagree with the logic but the numbers tell a different story.

See also: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nl-is-finally-winning-interleague-play-for-now/

Click to expand...

Also to follow this up, over almost 5k games(excluding 2016) the NL has a 2299-2565(.473) record vs AL teams in IL play. Think it's pretty difficult to suggest the AL doesn't have an advantage. Over that large of a sample a roughly 3% advantage is meaningful.

They've also been outscored in those games 21539 to 23139 or 1600 runs or roughly a third of a run per game.

Super-agent Scott Boras, posted up at Petco Park to see clients and watch Jake Arrieta pitch, pointed out that Russell is now only one of five shortstops within the last 40 years to have at least 19 homers during his age-22 season, joining Cal Ripken Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Troy Tulowitzki and Corey Seager.

Click to expand...

Boras gonna get Russell paid with talk like this...

Rizzo gets the day off. Bryant plays at 1B.

TL1961 said:

Trout is starting to decline?

Good grief!

Click to expand...

I said shelf life. Add to it you have to look at how long has he been playing vs his age. He has over 3400 AB's right now. That is also time spent in the OF. Right now he is not considered a elite D CF. what does he have 2.5 DWar cumulative?

O wise he is elite. So was Pujos until he hit LA on his big deal. Now he is a bat. A shadow of what he was. At a early age. What was it around 30 he inked his mega and his numbers have been in decline.

That is the thing inking these HS guys and pushing them up fast. They burn out earlier than guys that develop in college. College guys do not play every day at a young age and last longer in their careers.

A rod was a roid abuser so he can't even be counted here. That is not in play anymore.

Bet ya Trout declines way before Bryant dies.

beckdawg said:

Boras gonna get Russell paid with talk like this...

Click to expand...

Russell got what 5 or 6 more years of needing to post big numbers before seeking big pay day

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

TC in Mississippi said:

Rizzo gets the day off. Bryant plays at 1B.

Click to expand...

After 0 fer 5 Rizzo should get 4 days off
[emoji12]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

CSF77 said:

I said shelf life. Add to it you have to look at how long has he been playing vs his age. He has over 3400 AB's right now. That is also time spent in the OF. Right now he is not considered a elite D CF. what does he have 2.5 DWar cumulative?

O wise he is elite. So was Pujos until he hit LA on his big deal. Now he is a bat. A shadow of what he was. At a early age. What was it around 30 he inked his mega and his numbers have been in decline.

That is the thing inking these HS guys and pushing them up fast. They burn out earlier than guys that develop in college. College guys do not play every day at a young age and last longer in their careers.

A rod was a roid abuser so he can't even be counted here. That is not in play anymore.

Bet ya Trout declines way before Bryant dies.

Click to expand...

Trout hasn't declined defensively, he was just overrated due to highlight reel plays stealing HRs, and now people are waking up to what he's always been. He had one outlier outstanding year as an OF and has been average the rest of the time:

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=10155&position=OF