Dynasty Gone

[JP Hochbaum]

It's supposed to means Wins Above Replacement. If I'm understanding that correctly, and please correct me if I have this part wrong, but it means the number of more wins your team should expect with this player were on your team versus a traditional replacement player available, typically from the minors.

But that's a what. I've answered your questions.

You have refused to answer my question of how is that players affecting the game.

If WAR is such a great stat, would you feel comfortable with your team signing a guy based solely on that? G guy could accumulate WARs in the mid 2s by being great for 90 games where another guy can be solid for 150 games and only get to the low 2s. I know who I'm choosing, but WAR means sooooooooooooooooooo much and tells sooooooooooooooo much.

WAR is a counting stat. IF someone generated the same WAR in 90 games as another guy does in 150 games, then the guy that does it in 90 games is about twice as good. SO yeah, gimme that guy.

 

[Castor76]

Somebody’s mad

The answer is in your own statement. It’s a bit perplexing that you don’t see how WAR shows how a player impacts a game.

Never said WAR was the end all be all stat, all I said was it tells you how a player impacts games. You somehow still haven’t grasped that concept.

I’ll let you continue to simmer soooooooooo much longer

A game?

WAR impacts individual games? I could have sworn it was a indication of total number of games, in whole or part, that a player would lead to a team winning in a season versus having a replacement player. You're saying it affects a, as in singular, game? So how does one acquire more than 1 win in any 1 game?

Or will you just try to redefine the shitty stat again? You started by claiming Schwarber will have the 2nd highest WAR of his career. I state WAR is a shit stat, because it is. I say why I don't like it. You are the one who used the stat in your argument. I don't think you understand the difference between the words "that" and "how" or "how much." A logical person would state the stat of WAR can show that one player is more effective this season than another in a given season. The previous statement is an example of a "that" statement. The difference in those WAR stats is an indication of "how much" more effective. Unfortunately, what the WAR stat can't do is define "how" that player was able to be more effective. It could have been because the one player was much better with power numbers, or greater at defense, or getting on base, or all of that, or just one player got a lot more playing time for whatever reason. Who knows, because WAR sure as fuck ain't letting you know all on it's own.

Let me give a final example of why I don't like this stat. Two players who on 9//9/22 at 11:26 pm Central Time have the same WAR, same G of 115, only difference in PA is the 2nd has 30 more PA. 2nd player has a BA 40 points higher, OBP is 60 point higher, and SLG is 218 points, yes 218 points higher. Now if all you had was WAR to go on, you don't know that player #2 was this much better offensively, which could only mean player #1 must be that much better defensively, because that would actually get into the "how" these players are affecting the games, then how could you make a choice between which player you wanted for your team? They both have the same WAR effect. And if you say you'd look at other stats, I'll ask again why bother looking at WAR? Because WAR in no way tells you how, meaning the way in which, players actually affect the game.

 

[Castor76]

WAR is a counting stat. IF someone generated the same WAR in 90 games as another guy does in 150 games, then the guy that does it in 90 games is about twice as good. SO yeah, gimme that guy.

But you have to look at other stats, so why are you looking at WAR again? And why would you necessarily want the 90 game guy? Would you want him if his MO was only to give you about 120 a year like Harper was the first half of his career? I understand your thought process, but why would you even need WAR to have it. You could come to the same conclusion just looking at his other stats. Those same ones you were already looking at.

 

[knoxville7]

A game?

WAR impacts individual games? I could have sworn it was a indication of total number of games, in whole or part, that a player would lead to a team winning in a season versus having a replacement player. You're saying it affects a, as in singular, game? So how does one acquire more than 1 win in any 1 game?

Or will you just try to redefine the shitty stat again? You started by claiming Schwarber will have the 2nd highest WAR of his career. I state WAR is a shit stat, because it is. I say why I don't like it. You are the one who used the stat in your argument. I don't think you understand the difference between the words "that" and "how" or "how much." A logical person would state the stat of WAR can show that one player is more effective this season than another in a given season. The previous statement is an example of a "that" statement. The difference in those WAR stats is an indication of "how much" more effective. Unfortunately, what the WAR stat can't do is define "how" that player was able to be more effective. It could have been because the one player was much better with power numbers, or greater at defense, or getting on base, or all of that, or just one player got a lot more playing time for whatever reason. Who knows, because WAR sure as fuck ain't letting you know all on it's own.

Let me give a final example of why I don't like this stat. Two players who on 9//9/22 at 11:26 pm Central Time have the same WAR, same G of 115, only difference in PA is the 2nd has 30 more PA. 2nd player has a BA 40 points higher, OBP is 60 point higher, and SLG is 218 points, yes 218 points higher. Now if all you had was WAR to go on, you don't know that player #2 was this much better offensively, which could only mean player #1 must be that much better defensively, because that would actually get into the "how" these players are affecting the games, then how could you make a choice between which player you wanted for your team? They both have the same WAR effect. And if you say you'd look at other stats, I'll ask again why bother looking at WAR? Because WAR in no way tells you how, meaning the way in which, players actually affect the game.

Man, you are mad. You don’t like WAR and I could care less. You don’t have to like it

Just because WAR is a cumulative stat, doesn’t mean players don’t impact the game on a day to day basis. I’m sorry you cannot comprehend that.

Pretty easy to say that a player with a 4 WAR impacts an individual game greater than a player with a 2 WAR. But I’m just a simple guy with a fancy for basic arithmetic

In regards to schwarber and WAR, I simply stated he is on pace for his 2nd highest WAR season, a season in which he has lead off for the majority of it. I never made any argument, I made a factual statement. You’re the one trying to make an argument out of it

 

[DC]

First time at Wrigley today. Terrible effort. Terrible crowd. Won't be back.

 

[DC]

First time at Wrigley today. Terrible effort. Terrible crowd. Won't be back.

My Chicago Dog, however, was fantastic. And I love the bottomless pickles. Good crunch. 10/10.

 

[CSF77]

And who’s fault is it that Joe didn’t have a legit lead off guy?

He experimented and found Fowler for that spot, but once Fowler left, the cubs didn’t have anyone that could do the job well. The fact that Joe tried numerous people in that spot proves it and also proves Joe was searching for someone whomst could handle the job. It’s not his fault there wasnt anyone on the roster capable.

Also, in regard to Joe “ruining” schwarber and Happ by hitting them lead off…guess what schwarber has been doing some of for the Phillies this season?? That’s right, leading off lol

You are 100% correct. But it should have been a goal vs leaving it up to Joe to figure it out.

The Cubs are a top 5 revenue team and were in the middle of a play off run. That should have been the top priority.

Regardless I would not put this on David. The team has holes pre injury. What the front office has done is loaded up in talent. They do need a established lead off. I think most of us can agree on this as a top priority. I wouldn't try to experiment any more. It is too much to put on a non established player. Even established players struggle trying to become something that they are not suitable at.

 

[CSF77]

Well that said I feel pretty good about 2023. 2 arms this year established. Got another on the team. Pitching depth that can fill up the pen.

To be honest Jed gets a lead off and let's go of dead weight this team might be close.

Cubs article showed Happ as a top 3 D LF this year. Up to you guys to look at it but he has vastly improved to become a all around player.

So it could be a interesting off season.

 

[Chicagosports89]

Well that said I feel pretty good about 2023. 2 arms this year established. Got another on the team. Pitching depth that can fill up the pen.

To be honest Jed gets a lead off and let's go of dead weight this team might be close.

Cubs article showed Happ as a top 3 D LF this year. Up to you guys to look at it but he has vastly improved to become a all around player.

So it could be a interesting off season.

Lol did you see his play on the ball off the wall last night? If he'd been standing further toward rf the ball would have hit him. He still sucks defensively

 

[CSF77]

Lol did you see his play on the ball off the wall last night? If he'd been standing further toward rf the ball would have hit him. He still sucks defensively

Defensive Runs Saved
2022: 10
2021: minus-2

Outs Above Average
2022: 1
2021: minus-5

UZR/150
2022: 8.1
2021: minus-5.4

Entering Thursday, only Cleveland’s Steven Kwan (16) had more Defensive Runs Saved than Happ (nine) in left field. Happ was third in Statcast’s Outs Above Average (one) among left fielders and fourth in UZR/150 (7.9). He had eight outfield assists (third among MLB left fielders) and only two errors (on fielding plays and not throws).

 

[Chicagosports89]

Defensive Runs Saved
2022: 10
2021: minus-2

Outs Above Average
2022: 1
2021: minus-5

UZR/150
2022: 8.1
2021: minus-5.4

Entering Thursday, only Cleveland’s Steven Kwan (16) had more Defensive Runs Saved than Happ (nine) in left field. Happ was third in Statcast’s Outs Above Average (one) among left fielders and fourth in UZR/150 (7.9). He had eight outfield assists (third among MLB left fielders) and only two errors (on fielding plays and not throws).

Oh idc about any of that. I watched him be lucky to not have a ball hit him.

 

[CSF77]

Oh idc about any of that. I watched him be lucky to not have a ball hit him.

So facts don't matter because you saw 1 bad play. ?

 

[Chicagosports89]

So facts don't matter because you saw 1 bad play. ?

It's a theme with him. He's sucked everywhere he's played. He's improved, I'll give him that.

 

[TL1961]

So who from that 2016 are you pining to have back as a Cub? Between Rizzo, Baez, Bryant, and Schwarber, the only one hitting above .230 is Bryant and he's played all of 42 games this year. Rizzo and Schwarber do each have 30 plus homers, but their OBPs are less than .340.

That team was great and gave us something we never knew we'd ever see. But there wasn't a truly great player on that team. While much less in the HR department, the Cubs have spent less than 10M on the 4 primary replacements while those players are getting 73M this season. The current leaders are about putting a team out there to win when they can and not go crazy spending money trying to win headlines. I'd love it if this team was like the Dodgers and always seemed to get it right in the draft and otherwise not care about the CBT, but remind me again who has more titles in the past 30 years. Wait, they have the same. So for as much as I'd like the Cubs to be like the Dodgers, they actually aren't as far off as you think when the only result that truly matters is winning it all.

So you’re saying it doesn’t matter as a fan that a team is in the playoffs and entertaining all season long and competitive every year? In other words forget the 162 game season because the only thing that matters is the World Series?

 

[CSF77]

It's a theme with him. He's sucked everywhere he's played. He's improved, I'll give him that.

Well what the OP was is he has been tossed over the field and he has finally settled in one spot. That stability has given him a chance to learn routes and to get to know hitters tendincies

i think we can say that he has more in the tank.

Sori had the same issues. I believe that he finally had a coach that taught him about routes etc at the end of his Cub tour. He was out there on talent alone for years.

 

[TL1961]

Well what the OP was is he has been tossed over the field and he has finally settled in one spot. That stability has given him a chance to learn routes and to get to know hitters tendincies

i think we can say that he has more in the tank.

Sori had the same issues. I believe that he finally had a coach that taught him about routes etc at the end of his Cub tour. He was out there on talent alone for years.

Well what the OP was is he has been tossed over the field...

Huh?

 

[Castor76]

So you’re saying it doesn’t matter as a fan that a team is in the playoffs and entertaining all season long and competitive every year? In other words forget the 162 game season because the only thing that matters is the World Series?

Where did I say that? What I pointed out is that the Cubs aren't as far behind the Dodgers in terms of success and excitement for the fans as people like to claim. NLCS in 2015, title in 2016, NLCS in 2017, playoffs in 2018, missed in 2019 but were close and about .500. playoffs in 2020. It wasn't until last year that the writing was on the wall that some leans years were coming. And those could be ending quite soon. I also said I wanted the Cubs to have what the Dodgers have.

 

[TL1961]

Where did I say that? What I pointed out is that the Cubs aren't as far behind the Dodgers in terms of success and excitement for the fans as people like to claim. NLCS in 2015, title in 2016, NLCS in 2017, playoffs in 2018, missed in 2019 but were close and about .500. playoffs in 2020. It wasn't until last year that the writing was on the wall that some leans years were coming. And those could be ending quite soon. I also said I wanted the Cubs to have what the Dodgers have.

You literally said "the only result that truly matters is winning it all", and that is what I was referring to.

 

[Castor76]

You literally said "the only result that truly matters is winning it all", and that is what I was referring to.

Because it is when you get down to it. Since 2013 the Dodgers have made the playoffs every year. They have 1 title. The Red Sox have only made the playoffs 5 times in the same period, just over half, yet have 2 titles. Go back another decade on the Dodgers have 14 post season runs to the Red Sox 11. Sox got them 4 titles to one though. Would you rather have had the Braves 90s run or Toronto's? Would the Dodgers trade 2 or 3 non title post seasons to get the title in 2017? How long can any fanbase be satisfied with just being good to really good but only once every few decades they actually manage to win it all? Dabbling in a few seasons of suck and winning the chip is probably more satisfying.

 

[Sevendaymelee]

Hey, it's okay. I have my '16 ticket stub framed and sitting over there on top of the entertainment center. If we never sniff another world series before I die, I can become that really old dude who's got proof of the last time the Cubs were great. lol