2015: The Back To The Future Season

[Tonker]

I think the Cubs can get better while not improving their W-L record. They had pretty good health luck with their top line players this year, Soler excepted. Had they missed significant time from any of the big dicks in the lineup or either of their staff aces, they'd have been critically fucked. That kind of thing could happen in a year or two and they could be better prepared to endure it, like the Cardinals did this year.

I hope this makes sense!!

It makes zero sense.  What the fuck are you talking about?  Are those even words?

[SKO]

I think the Cubs can get better while not improving their W-L record. They had pretty good health luck with their top line players this year, Soler excepted. Had they missed significant time from any of the big dicks in the lineup or either of their staff aces, they'd have been critically fucked. That kind of thing could happen in a year or two and they could be better prepared to endure it, like the Cardinals did this year.

I hope this makes sense!!

I think we're all saying the same things now. Parts of this team will get better, parts will get worse, Theo and Co. will shore up weaknesses where they can.

They have a core now that should win a lot of games and I think we all feel reasonably confident this won't be their only shot at the dance with this group. People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years and, as people have pointed out, that's just not likely no matter how good of a team you have. Winning 95 games is fucking hard and takes a lot of things going right. Fortunately they shouldn't have to win that many every year to get in. It's all good, man.

[Tony]

I think the Cubs can get better while not improving their W-L record. They had pretty good health luck with their top line players this year, Soler excepted. Had they missed significant time from any of the big dicks in the lineup or either of their staff aces, they'd have been critically fucked. That kind of thing could happen in a year or two and they could be better prepared to endure it, like the Cardinals did this year.

I hope this makes sense!!

It makes zero sense.  What the fuck are you talking about?  Are those even words?

#firstworldproblems amirite?!

[Quality Start Machine]

I think the Cubs can get better while not improving their W-L record. They had pretty good health luck with their top line players this year, Soler excepted. Had they missed significant time from any of the big dicks in the lineup or either of their staff aces, they'd have been critically fucked. That kind of thing could happen in a year or two and they could be better prepared to endure it, like the Cardinals did this year.

I hope this makes sense!!

I think we're all saying the same things now. Parts of this team will get better, parts will get worse, Theo and Co. will shore up weaknesses where they can.

They have a core now that should win a lot of games and I think we all feel reasonably confident this won't be their only shot at the dance with this group. People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years and, as people have pointed out, that's just not likely no matter how good of a team you have. Winning 95 games is fucking hard and takes a lot of things going right. Fortunately they shouldn't have to win that many every year to get in. It's all good, man.

Context. Stop dicking around with years, this is an era.

[Tonker]

I think the Cubs can get better while not improving their W-L record. They had pretty good health luck with their top line players this year, Soler excepted. Had they missed significant time from any of the big dicks in the lineup or either of their staff aces, they'd have been critically fucked. That kind of thing could happen in a year or two and they could be better prepared to endure it, like the Cardinals did this year.

I hope this makes sense!!

It makes zero sense.  What the fuck are you talking about?  Are those even words?

#firstworldproblems amirite?!

YOU FASCIST.

[Eli]

People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years

I do think there's a segment of people who really do believe this.

[SKO]

People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years

I do think there's a segment of people who really do believe this.

The hot takes if this team (and specifically the rookies everyone is expecting to just automatically level up next year) gets off to a slow start next season will kill us all.

[InternetApex]

People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years

I do think there's a segment of people who really do believe this.

If they win 91 games and enter the postseason with four starting pitchers that reasonable observers feel comfortable with, would that make them a better team than this one, assuming some of the rookies progress, others don't and some regress or die?

That seems like an improvement to me.

[Eli]

People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years

I do think there's a segment of people who really do believe this.

The hot takes if this team (and specifically the rookies everyone is expecting to just automatically level up next year) gets off to a slow start next season will kill us all.

This might be useful reading for a lot of folks ahead of the season.

The key takeaway:

This information is important in predicting young players' performance. Once a hitter makes it to the majors, he doesn't really improve. In the past, people used to hope for improvement and growth as the player aged. These days, people should expect to see the player performing at his career best immediately.

A couple possible reasons may be behind the lack of improvement. First, players are more prepared for majors, physically and mentally. In the past, a player may not have had the best conditioning, coaching and training while he was in the minors. Teams are putting more resources into their minor league affiliates, and there isn't room for improvement with the major league team. Second, teams may be better at knowing if or when a player will be MLB ready, meaning the player doesn't have to mature and grow at a lower level. They are ready to contribute immediately

...

For years, pitcher performance declined as those players aged, but hitters seemed to have an up and down performance curve. In the past few seasons, hitters no longer improve once they arrive in the majors. Instead, their performance is constant until they begin to decline, which, on average, is at 26 years old.

Obviously, this isn't unilaterally true. Some guys will definitely get better (for one, I'd be really surprised if Addison doesn't get better at the plate). But there are plenty of guys who just are what they are (an extreme example, but Mike Trout has more or less been the same hitter since he came into the bigs).

[SKO]

People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years

I do think there's a segment of people who really do believe this.

If they win 91 games and enter the postseason with four starting pitchers that reasonable observers feel comfortable with, would that make them a better team than this one, assuming some of the rookies progress, others don't and some regress or die?

That seems like an improvement to me.

It does and it doesn't. There are plenty of people who will look at the record and say they regressed regardless. Those people aren't here, I don't think, so we're wasting an awfully lot of time talking to them.

The Cubs will be as good next year as they are this year or better, they could also be worse, but be better while being worse, or maybe next year they'll be the Cardinals and win 100 games despite having no fucking right whatsoever to do so. Something something let's see how this plays outs.

[Quality Start Machine]

People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years

I do think there's a segment of people who really do believe this.

The hot takes if this team (and specifically the rookies everyone is expecting to just automatically level up next year) gets off to a slow start next season will kill us all.

"automatically" is probably a poor choice. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more than the 1.7 WAR Schwarber's put together in half a season or the 0.2 from Soler. I do think it is unreasonable to expect another 7 out of Arrieta and another 3.1 out of Fowler. Hell, I'll even throw Montero in there as a regression candidate.

But most of the veteran guys are essentially hitting their levels. Coughlan's year isn't that big a variance on last year. Lester's actually down from last year.

Bottom line is, this team is going to win a fuckload of games each year for at least the next half decade, and so far Jepstink has been pretty astute at finding guys who can add some wins. Just enjoy what's happening here, because I think when you guys are my age you'll look back at this time and shake your head in amazement over how fucking awesome a time it was.

[Eli]

TL;DR

The Cubs could be better next year with worse results, better with better results, worse with better results, or worse with worse results. So let's enjoy this really fun year that's happening right now.

Yay go cubs!

[SKO]

People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years

I do think there's a segment of people who really do believe this.

The hot takes if this team (and specifically the rookies everyone is expecting to just automatically level up next year) gets off to a slow start next season will kill us all.

This might be useful reading for a lot of folks ahead of the season.

The key takeaway:

This information is important in predicting young players' performance. Once a hitter makes it to the majors, he doesn't really improve. In the past, people used to hope for improvement and growth as the player aged. These days, people should expect to see the player performing at his career best immediately.

A couple possible reasons may be behind the lack of improvement. First, players are more prepared for majors, physically and mentally. In the past, a player may not have had the best conditioning, coaching and training while he was in the minors. Teams are putting more resources into their minor league affiliates, and there isn't room for improvement with the major league team. Second, teams may be better at knowing if or when a player will be MLB ready, meaning the player doesn't have to mature and grow at a lower level. They are ready to contribute immediately

...

For years, pitcher performance declined as those players aged, but hitters seemed to have an up and down performance curve. In the past few seasons, hitters no longer improve once they arrive in the majors. Instead, their performance is constant until they begin to decline, which, on average, is at 26 years old.

Obviously, this isn't unilaterally true. Some guys will definitely get better (for one, I'd be really surprised if Addison doesn't get better at the plate). But there are plenty of guys who just are what they are (an extreme example, but Mike Trout has more or less been the same hitter since he came into the bigs).

I call this the Matt Ryan Paradox. Just because a guy does better than expected as a rookie doesn't mean he'll have a better than expected career, it might just mean he was better prepared for the big leagues than people thought. His talent still has a very defined limit.

But yeah I'd still expect a guy like Russell especially to slowly improve till his big league numbers look a little bit more like his minor league numbers, but I mean that improvement has already started to happen. There's been a clear improvement from first half to second half.

[InternetApex]

People took Fork reflexively responding "AND THEY'LL BE BETTER EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS" to me saying they'll win 95-97 games this year as Fork saying they'll win 96 or more games each of the next five years

I do think there's a segment of people who really do believe this.

The hot takes if this team (and specifically the rookies everyone is expecting to just automatically level up next year) gets off to a slow start next season will kill us all.

This might be useful reading for a lot of folks ahead of the season.

The key takeaway:

This information is important in predicting young players' performance. Once a hitter makes it to the majors, he doesn't really improve. In the past, people used to hope for improvement and growth as the player aged. These days, people should expect to see the player performing at his career best immediately.

A couple possible reasons may be behind the lack of improvement. First, players are more prepared for majors, physically and mentally. In the past, a player may not have had the best conditioning, coaching and training while he was in the minors. Teams are putting more resources into their minor league affiliates, and there isn't room for improvement with the major league team. Second, teams may be better at knowing if or when a player will be MLB ready, meaning the player doesn't have to mature and grow at a lower level. They are ready to contribute immediately

...

For years, pitcher performance declined as those players aged, but hitters seemed to have an up and down performance curve. In the past few seasons, hitters no longer improve once they arrive in the majors. Instead, their performance is constant until they begin to decline, which, on average, is at 26 years old.

Obviously, this isn't unilaterally true. Some guys will definitely get better (for one, I'd be really surprised if Addison doesn't get better at the plate). But there are plenty of guys who just are what they are (an extreme example, but Mike Trout has more or less been the same hitter since he came into the bigs).

I call this the Matt Ryan Paradox. Just because a guy does better than expected as a rookie doesn't mean he'll have a better than expected career, it might just mean he was better prepared for the big leagues than people thought. His talent still has a very defined limit.

But yeah I'd still expect a guy like Russell especially to slowly improve till his big league numbers look a little bit more like his minor league numbers, but I mean that improvement has already started to happen. There's been a clear improvement from first half to second half.

It's very true that a lot of guys who make it to the majors are sort of bad and they don't improve much if at all. If they did, you wouldn't notice because they're still bad and not destined for a second contract. These guys probably make up 99% of the data. That's my estimate, having not read a single thing about this.

But there are guys like Jose Bautista and Anthony Rizzo and ... Sammy Sosa, who make adjustments to their approach that make them dramatically better than they were before because they're so fucking talented - like Oh, my god.

So Addison will be better than 2015 Starlin Castro in the long run and Mike Olt is fucking awful. Fuck him.

[SKO]

It's very true that a lot of guys who make it to the majors are sort of bad and they don't improve much if at all. If they did, you wouldn't notice because they're still bad and not destined for a second contract. These guys probably make up 99% of the data. That's my estimate, having not read a single thing about this.

But there are guys like Jose Bautista and Anthony Rizzo and ... Sammy Sosa, who make adjustments to their approach that make them dramatically better than they were before because they're so fucking talented - like Oh, my god.

So Addison will be better than 2015 Starlin Castro in the long run and Mike Olt is fucking awful. Fuck him.

This is a good point. How many of those players that didn't get better once they arrived were as talented as Addison or Jorge?

Heck, Eli mentioned Trout being basically the same guy since he was a rookie, which is true if you ignore the 135 PAs he put up in 2011. Would Kris Bryant have had his July slump this year if he had a 40 game stint to get some real live data on how big league pitchers would approach him and a whole offseason to tinker?

I feel like it's generally true that the majors are a bad place to expect a guy to make changes to their approach. I doubt Javy Baez manages to tinker his swing and cut down on the Ks if he hadn't spent most of this summer in Iowa. Corey Patterson never developed patience in the minors, and once he was up it's a matter of survival and no guy wants to waste major league at bats by trying new things.

Guys like Addison and Jorge, though? Both seem to have good approaches, both generally know the difference between a ball and a strike. There are timing and familiarity issues but it's not hard to see where simple experience is all they are lacking.