I am so often deluged
By the trepidation of a contiguous life
Washed beneath the surface of a turbulent sea
Still perceptible, the faintest light shines through
Within my grasp, yet the source a million miles away
To what rationale does this light persist?
Derelict remainders, we meander along
Now provoked by a disposition so innate
By instinct, I reach towards the light
By credulity, the light reaches towards me
I emerge once more without resolution
No greater understanding of why this must be
Back on solid footing, I peer at the source,
Unsure to what extent a role it had played
It peers back at me, revealing no secret
Interminable, the only constant I've ever known
I feel it's necessity, the most dense of illusions
The goal is forever in sight
In the depths of despair, it's signature glow,
Sending my aspirations to saunter free
My only doubt as darkness sets again,
Was I born of the light, or the light born of me?
Saturday, December 26, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
A poem (to the best of my knowledge)
All the blustering of a nor'easters gale
Full of intensity and thrice the chill
Sweeping over both land and sea
With ample warning, it struck us still
Extreme is the force behind this storm
To respond, women and men cannot refrain
Each clash rains a hatred, overflowing,
The run-off seeps into the brain
In a fury, all parties spring to action,
Not knowing how or why
To save us all, sacrifices must be made,
And surely some will die
A biting cold creeps towards the heart,
Unrest aims to destroy what's long been there
Each individual rhythm is unique, isolated,
Vulnerable is the symbol we all share
The wrath peaks, giving way to silence,
We cling to hope, holding our loved ones near
In a sudden flash, the storm breaks,
Is anyone there? as the clouds begin to clear
Full of intensity and thrice the chill
Sweeping over both land and sea
With ample warning, it struck us still
Extreme is the force behind this storm
To respond, women and men cannot refrain
Each clash rains a hatred, overflowing,
The run-off seeps into the brain
In a fury, all parties spring to action,
Not knowing how or why
To save us all, sacrifices must be made,
And surely some will die
A biting cold creeps towards the heart,
Unrest aims to destroy what's long been there
Each individual rhythm is unique, isolated,
Vulnerable is the symbol we all share
The wrath peaks, giving way to silence,
We cling to hope, holding our loved ones near
In a sudden flash, the storm breaks,
Is anyone there? as the clouds begin to clear
Saturday, December 5, 2015
John Lackey persists despite all objections
The Chicago Cubs have signed 37-year old Starting Pitcher John Lackey to a 2-year/$32 million contract. Last night, I responded to that news with a minor tantrum. It was an emotional reaction where I aired my litany of grievances against Lackey, from being a grown man who wears a cowboy hat, to the more serious offense of leaving his wife as she was battling breast cancer. The more I thought about it, the more I started to accept that emotions are stupid when analyzing baseball transactions. So, I decided to take a more rational approach and look at the numbers and what this signing means for the Cubs.
There are two projections on Lackey currently available. The first is his Steamer projection available on FanGraphs (here). Steamer projects Lackey to make 31 starts in 2016, for 190 innings, with a 3.89 ERA. That's an expected WAR of 2.6. Last night, Dan Szymborski tweeted Lackey's two-year ZiPS projection (here). The ZiPS projection was pretty favorable for Lackey and the Cubs, expecting a 3.4 WAR in 2016, and 3.1 WAR in 2017. If he performs at that level, this deal will be quite a success for the Cubs. For comparison, Jordan Zimmermann, who just last week signed a 5-year/$110 million contract with the Detroit Tigers, is projected for 2.5 WAR by Steamer. That means, the Cubs signed a roughly comparable pitcher for fewer years, which equals less risk, and an average annual value that's $6 million less. Despite all my bitching, the Cubs may have found a bargain in Lackey.
My projection for Lackey is more in agreement with the Steamer projection, mostly due to the fact that I don't believe Lackey's performance with RISP is sustainable. I would expect a greater deal of regression than ZiPS is suggesting. Though, it should be noted, my projection is only a product of my feeble brain, and not of complex algorithms like Steamer and ZiPS. My brain is less efficient than a computer at producing everything except the abstract. My expectation is about 2.8 WAR. I believe he'll throw more than 190 innings, but at about the same effectiveness as Steamer projects. When calculating how much this addition improves the Cubs, you can't just simply add Lackey's value, as his expected 31 starts will be replacing something. (Here), in a previous post, I already took a look at what the Cubs had in their rotation prior this signing. Lackey will likely slide into the #3 slot in the Cubs rotation, but the starts he's really replacing, in theory, are the worst 31 in the projection, from the bottom of the Cubs pitching depth. Those starts would have been worth about 1.0 WAR to the team, but replacing those starts with Lackey adds 1.8 WAR to a Cubs team already projected to win 93 games.
How does this effect the rest of the Cubs offseason? you might ask. Well, the expectation was the Cubs could add roughly $20 million to their 2016 payroll. If that's the case, this signing pretty much takes them out of the running for another major free-agent. That seems to be the greatest disappointment coming from the Lackey signing. He's not the exciting splash that every fan wants his team to make. Personally, I wanted the Cubs to give Jason Heyward all of the money and all of the years. Not necessarily because it's the best strategy, or that I wouldn't regret it halfway through the contract. I just wanted to be excited right now. I wanted instant gratification. I will not apologize for this because all evidence suggests: this is who we are. Take it up with your creator, or EVILution, or whoever else you'd like.
So, this leaves a few questions. Are the Cubs going to add another starting pitcher? Are they going to add an elite reliever? Who's going to hit lead-off? Who the hell is going to play Center Field? I don't know any of these things. My suspicion was that if they were going to trade for an impact starting pitcher, it was going to cost them a minimum of Jorge Soler. With limitations on how much payroll they can add, I doubt at this point they'll deal Soler to make another significant addition to the rotation, opening up a second hole in the Outfield. The Cubs had been linked to reliever Darren O'Day early in the off-season, but as interest in O'Day increased, interest from the Cubs seems to have tempered. It now appears the Cubs will employ a similar strategy with the Bullpen as they did, with some success, in 2015. They've already started the process, adding Ryan Cook and Rex Brothers, inexpensive rebound candidates coming off a combination of injuries and poor performance. Center Field is still the biggest area of need. I've thought all along the Cubs were more likely to fill that need through trade than free-agency (including Dexter Fowler). However, yesterday, I found some interesting news that went a bit under the radar. Javier Baez is going to play Center Field this winter in Puerto Rico. If he can do it well, and with his athleticism I'm confident he can, that certainly gives the team some more options. This does not, however, solve the mystery of the likely lead-off hitter. I still don't think that guy is on this team right now. I wish I could offer solutions, but unless the Cubs extend past their comfort level with the payroll, or get creative with some trades, I don't see a clear answer. We know Dexter Fowler is available and can do the job, but he's probably asking for a contract in the 4-years/$60 million range. Denard Span is a slightly less attractive free-agent possibility, expected to receive a contract in the 3-years/$40 million range. A couple weeks ago, the Cubs were rumored to have discussed a Starlin Castro for Brett Gardner deal with the New York Yankees. A deal that would have been a net increase of $6 million to the 2016 payroll. That's a move that fits more with the Cubs budget, and fills the lead-off need, but Gardner profiles best as a Left Fielder. He's been roughly average over the past three seasons in Center Field over a sample of 180 games. Now 32, and signed through 2018, Gardner's defensive decline would only be amplified with a full-time move to Center Field.
There's two main takeaways from this: The Lackey signing was a good deal, and an improvement, despite how much of an asshole he might be. The Cubs definitely still have work to do. All else is guesswork, providing no limit to the number of hot takes to be offered.
There are two projections on Lackey currently available. The first is his Steamer projection available on FanGraphs (here). Steamer projects Lackey to make 31 starts in 2016, for 190 innings, with a 3.89 ERA. That's an expected WAR of 2.6. Last night, Dan Szymborski tweeted Lackey's two-year ZiPS projection (here). The ZiPS projection was pretty favorable for Lackey and the Cubs, expecting a 3.4 WAR in 2016, and 3.1 WAR in 2017. If he performs at that level, this deal will be quite a success for the Cubs. For comparison, Jordan Zimmermann, who just last week signed a 5-year/$110 million contract with the Detroit Tigers, is projected for 2.5 WAR by Steamer. That means, the Cubs signed a roughly comparable pitcher for fewer years, which equals less risk, and an average annual value that's $6 million less. Despite all my bitching, the Cubs may have found a bargain in Lackey.
My projection for Lackey is more in agreement with the Steamer projection, mostly due to the fact that I don't believe Lackey's performance with RISP is sustainable. I would expect a greater deal of regression than ZiPS is suggesting. Though, it should be noted, my projection is only a product of my feeble brain, and not of complex algorithms like Steamer and ZiPS. My brain is less efficient than a computer at producing everything except the abstract. My expectation is about 2.8 WAR. I believe he'll throw more than 190 innings, but at about the same effectiveness as Steamer projects. When calculating how much this addition improves the Cubs, you can't just simply add Lackey's value, as his expected 31 starts will be replacing something. (Here), in a previous post, I already took a look at what the Cubs had in their rotation prior this signing. Lackey will likely slide into the #3 slot in the Cubs rotation, but the starts he's really replacing, in theory, are the worst 31 in the projection, from the bottom of the Cubs pitching depth. Those starts would have been worth about 1.0 WAR to the team, but replacing those starts with Lackey adds 1.8 WAR to a Cubs team already projected to win 93 games.
How does this effect the rest of the Cubs offseason? you might ask. Well, the expectation was the Cubs could add roughly $20 million to their 2016 payroll. If that's the case, this signing pretty much takes them out of the running for another major free-agent. That seems to be the greatest disappointment coming from the Lackey signing. He's not the exciting splash that every fan wants his team to make. Personally, I wanted the Cubs to give Jason Heyward all of the money and all of the years. Not necessarily because it's the best strategy, or that I wouldn't regret it halfway through the contract. I just wanted to be excited right now. I wanted instant gratification. I will not apologize for this because all evidence suggests: this is who we are. Take it up with your creator, or EVILution, or whoever else you'd like.
So, this leaves a few questions. Are the Cubs going to add another starting pitcher? Are they going to add an elite reliever? Who's going to hit lead-off? Who the hell is going to play Center Field? I don't know any of these things. My suspicion was that if they were going to trade for an impact starting pitcher, it was going to cost them a minimum of Jorge Soler. With limitations on how much payroll they can add, I doubt at this point they'll deal Soler to make another significant addition to the rotation, opening up a second hole in the Outfield. The Cubs had been linked to reliever Darren O'Day early in the off-season, but as interest in O'Day increased, interest from the Cubs seems to have tempered. It now appears the Cubs will employ a similar strategy with the Bullpen as they did, with some success, in 2015. They've already started the process, adding Ryan Cook and Rex Brothers, inexpensive rebound candidates coming off a combination of injuries and poor performance. Center Field is still the biggest area of need. I've thought all along the Cubs were more likely to fill that need through trade than free-agency (including Dexter Fowler). However, yesterday, I found some interesting news that went a bit under the radar. Javier Baez is going to play Center Field this winter in Puerto Rico. If he can do it well, and with his athleticism I'm confident he can, that certainly gives the team some more options. This does not, however, solve the mystery of the likely lead-off hitter. I still don't think that guy is on this team right now. I wish I could offer solutions, but unless the Cubs extend past their comfort level with the payroll, or get creative with some trades, I don't see a clear answer. We know Dexter Fowler is available and can do the job, but he's probably asking for a contract in the 4-years/$60 million range. Denard Span is a slightly less attractive free-agent possibility, expected to receive a contract in the 3-years/$40 million range. A couple weeks ago, the Cubs were rumored to have discussed a Starlin Castro for Brett Gardner deal with the New York Yankees. A deal that would have been a net increase of $6 million to the 2016 payroll. That's a move that fits more with the Cubs budget, and fills the lead-off need, but Gardner profiles best as a Left Fielder. He's been roughly average over the past three seasons in Center Field over a sample of 180 games. Now 32, and signed through 2018, Gardner's defensive decline would only be amplified with a full-time move to Center Field.
There's two main takeaways from this: The Lackey signing was a good deal, and an improvement, despite how much of an asshole he might be. The Cubs definitely still have work to do. All else is guesswork, providing no limit to the number of hot takes to be offered.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Chicago Cubs Offseason Preview
First, a brief explanation of how I'm doing to break down each team. I'll post this at the beginning of each Preview.
I'm going to start by going through each position, looking at what the team has at that position looking towards 2016, ultimately giving an expected WAR (Wins Above Replacement) for each position. The base number of wins for a Replacement level team is 47.7, and I'll use that number, combined the with that team's projected WAR, to estimate how many games the 2016 version of that team would win based on the current roster. In my conclusions section, I'll discuss where the team can improve, whether or not there's a realistic path to compete for a title in 2016, and if not, what that team could do to accelerate the rebuilding process.
Catcher - Miguel Montero, David Ross, and Kyle Schwarber are all under contract through at least 2016. I'd expect the breakdown to be Montero (92 games), Schwarber (40 games), and Ross (30 games). Montero will get the bulk of the work, with Ross behind the plate for Jon Lester's starts, and Schwarber getting the Evan Gattis treatment, splitting his time between Outfield, DH in AL parks, and Catching about twice each week. Willson Contreras, who won the Double-A Southern League batting title in 2015, will be added to the 40-man roster, and will likely begin 2016 in Triple-A Iowa. He's expected to debut at some point late in 2016, perhaps September, but with the Cubs already splitting time between three players, it's difficult to project a significant role for him with the Big League club unless injuries force him into the Catching rotation. Miguel Montero has been one of the best pitch framers in the game over the past couple years, averaging about 10 runs saves per 90 games. Some of that value from framing will already be credited to the pitching performance of the guys on the staff that worked with Montero last year, so I'll only apply half of the 10 runs to Miguel, adding 0.5 WAR to his value. Montero's contributions project to about 2.5 WAR. Kyle Schwarber can definitely hit, and at least showed he's not a disaster behind the plate in his debut season, even if he may not be ready to catch the Cubs top of the rotation pitchers. For the 40 games Schwarber will play behind the plate, he'll add about 0.8 WAR. David Ross, despite being a non-hitter at this point in his career, is still solid defensively, and one of baseball's best per-game pitch framers, which is the primary source any value he'll provide. For his 30 games, pairing mostly with Jon Lester, he'll add 0.2 WAR. 2016 projection: 3.5 WAR
1st Base - Anthony Rizzo played first base in 160 of the Cubs 162 regular season games in 2015. I'm sure the organization would like to rest Rizzo slightly more in 2016, but Chris Coghlan, Kris Bryant, and Javier Baez are the only three players on the Cubs current roster who played any first base in 2015, and that was for a combined total of 20-innings. It seems possible the Cubs could have Schwarber fill in occasional, though they may feel he has enough on his plate already, and may not want to add learning yet another position to his development. Dan Vogelbach, rated the #13 prospect in the Cubs system, could see some time at first, especially if there's an injury to Rizzo, but he's not yet been added to the 40-man roster, and could be a victim of the Cubs looming roster crunch, which you can read about here. I'm going to project 150 games for Rizzo, as I'd expect Joe Maddon to make it a point to get him more rest in 2016. To cover the other 12 games, I'll give all 12 to Kris Bryant. With there being plenty of other options to fill in at 3rd base, Sliding Bryant across the diamond for a dozen games is probably the most realistic solution given the Cubs current roster. Anthony Rizzo has put together back-to-back tremendous seasons for the Cubs, and 2016 should be no different. The Cubs can expect about 5.0 WAR from Rizzo in 2016, with 0.5 WAR tacked on from a dozen games of Kris Bryant. 2016 projection: 5.5 WAR
2nd Base - It's nearly impossible to know what to expect out of this position for 2016. Starlin Castro, Javier Baez, Tommy La Stella, Chris Coghlan, and Addison Russell (now firmly entrenched as the starting Shortstop) all saw significant time at second in 2015, and all are under contract for 2016. It's likely at least one of those players will not be on the team come March, but your guess is as good as mine. With Russell at Shortstop full-time, Baez is the Cubs best option at Second Base, but he also holds the most value of the remaining group, making him the most likely to be traded in my mind. Until this mess works itself out, I'm going to split playing time between Castro (80 games), Baez (50 games), La Stella (32 games). Coghlan has proven to be capable of playing second in a pinch, but with the Cubs current depth at the position, it's just not necessary. Castro projects to 0.9 WAR over 80 games. Baez for 50 games is worth 0.9 WAR. La Stella provides 0.2 WAR in his limited role. 2016 projection: 2.0 WAR
3rd Base - Kris Bryant, almost certain to be awarded the 2015 NL Rookie of the Year, will again be the Cubs third baseman in 2016. Bryant was everything Cubs fans could have hoped for at the plate in 2015, but the real surprise was his defense. Bryant entered 2015 with some question as to whether or not his defensive limitations would eventually force the Cubs to move him off the position. Not only has he proven he can stick at third base in the short term, but he measured above average with the glove in his debut season, suggesting third could be his long-term home. The Cubs will want to keep Bryant on a similar playing schedule to Anthony Rizzo, and with Bryant already penciled in for 12 games at first base, and likely to see some time in the outfield, I'll give him 120 games at third, which projects to 5.0 WAR. The remaining 42 games will be split between Javier Baez (30 games) worth 0.5 WAR, and Tommy La Stella (12 games) for no added value above replacement level. 2016 Projection: 5.5 WAR
Shortstop - After Starlin Castro was benched in early August, Addison Russell shifted from second base to shortstop, where he took over full-time duties and never looked back. Much like Bryant at third base, there was some question whether or not shortstop would be the long-term home for Russell, as it's expected, given his frame, he'll naturally add weight and lose range as he ages. However, in 2015, Russell was one of the best defensive infielders in baseball, and actually improved his UZR/150 after shifting from second to shortstop. It will be difficult for Addison to repeat that defensive value again in 2016, but even if he remains above average, his potential for growth and his current value to the Cubs are both enormous. With his patient approach at the plate combined with the ability he showed in the second half of 2015 to pull the ball in the air with some authority, I'm more bullish on Russell's offensive production for 2016 than the projection systems I've seen. In 2015, Addison ranked 28th among all qualified hitters with a 40.7% fly-ball rate, and was one of only three players from that selection with a ground-ball rate above 40%. As you can read here, fewer ground balls lead to more power, and GB rates for hitters don't peak until 24 or 25-years old. Addison Russell is coming off a 21-year old debut season. It stands to reason, his ground-ball rate will to decline as he approaches his prime, meaning his line drive and fly ball rates would see an increase. That fly ball rate in combination with a Pull% in the Top 50, as Russell had in 2015, leads me to believe there's power potential there that hasn't quite shown itself to this point. Over 150 games at Shortstop, Russell projects to 3.0 WAR. With both Baez and Castro still on the roster as of now, there's plenty of depth at this position. Given the current roster, Baez would be the Utility Infielder, and would claim the dozen off days for Russell, worth 0.2 WAR. 2016 Projection: 3.2 WAR
Left Field - Kyle Schwarber should see the bulk of his playing time here. Despite the memories we all have of him stumbling around the outfield against the Mets like the drunk guy on your softball team, by UZR, Schwarber wasn't actually a disaster in left field in 2015. Even if he's a below average defender in left, Kyle's bat is strong enough to provide the club plenty of value. With 40 games already committed to Catcher, and another 10 as the team's DH in Interleague Play, Schwarber will play 100 games in Left Field, worth 2.4 WAR. The other 62 games will go to the veteran utility man, Chris Coghlan, worth 0.4 WAR. 2016 Projection: 2.8 WAR
Center Field - Center Field is the biggest question mark on the team as of today. Dexter Fowler handled the job very well for the Cubs in 2015, but he declined Cubs qualifying offer last week and decided to test free agency. I want to make clear, Cubs fans shouldn't be angry with Fowler for declining the qualifying offer, as the offer is more of a formality on the way to free agency than it is a realistic offer. To explain it as quickly as I can, if a team offers a player the qualifying offer, and the player declines (no player has ever accepted), the team receives a compensation draft pick at the end of the first round if that player signs elsewhere as a free-agent. A team signing a free-agent who was offered a qualifying offer forfeits it's highest draft pick, with the top 10 picks being protected, in which case, that team then forfeits it's next highest draft pick. The reason Fowler, and every other player in the three years since the most recent CBA, would decline the qualifying offer is because the one year offer of $15.8 million, while a significant amount for one season, offers less guaranteed money and less stability than a multi-year deal. I think it's too easy to forget these guys are human beings, often with families. Even if the per-year value of the contract is less, players will almost always value the security of a multi-year deal over a one-year deal. For example, just last year, Michael Cuddyer rejected a $15.3 million qualifying offer from the Colorado Rockies to sign a 2-year/$21 million deal with the New York Mets. Obviously, the per-year value was significantly less, but with all contracts in MLB being guaranteed, the 2-year deal with the Mets provides more guaranteed money, and greater stability for Cuddyer and his family than the one-year offer. Fowler will do even better than that in free agency, as Fangraphs contract crowdsourcing (here) projects Fowler to receive a 4-year/$56 million deal, which I believe is tad low. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets north of $60 million, so declining the Cubs qualifying offer was definitely the right decision for Fowler. However, that doesn't mean he won't sign back with the Cubs, as the Cubs have a need at Center Field that must to be addressed through either trade or free agency. For now, a combination of Albert Almora, Arismendy Alcantara, and Matt Szczur would need to fill Center Field. All reports are that Almora's glove is ready to play in the Majors, but there's still some question as to whether or not he'll hit enough to be a full-time player. Even so, there's far more upside with Almora than Alcantara at this point. Even if Alcantara manages to reduce his K% below 30%, which he's yet to do in over 300 ML at-bats, he still appears destined for a career as a reserve player. Szczur is least skilled off the three, and would likely spend the season in Iowa unless injuries forced him to the Majors. With the Cubs current options, I'd expect Almora to get the majority of the playing time here. If there's one thing we've learned from the advancement of analytics in baseball, it's that we're still pretty bad at projecting who's going to be a good defender. With that knowledge, it's difficult to assign Almora a defensive value until we have more information, so despite the positive reports, I'll just assume average defense out of Albert. For 120 games, Almora is worth 1.0 WAR. Alcantara would clean up the remaining 62 games, for 0.4 WAR. 2016 Projection: 1.4 WAR
Right Field - There are plenty of reports the Cubs will look to improve their outfield defense in 2016, including straight from the front office, leading to speculation that Jorge Soler may be traded this off-season. For now, though, he's still on the team. If he still is come April, he'll be the team's primary Right Fielder. Soler's offensive potential is enormous, but at just 23, he's already something of a defensive liability, which limits his overall value to the club. He could potentially benefit from a shift to a slightly less demanding Left Field, but the Cubs already have a defensively deficient Kyle Schwarber parked in left. As of now, I'll project Soler for 110 games in 2016, for 1.0 WAR. Chris Coghlan would get 34 games, worth 0.2 WAR. The remaining 18 games will go to Kris Bryant, providing 0.5 WAR. 2016 Projection: 1.7 WAR
Starting Pitcher - Among the Cubs 2015 starting pitchers, Jake Arrieta, Jon Lester, Jason Hammel, Kyle Hendricks, Dallas Beeler, and Clayton Richard are all under contract for 2016. Dan Haren (retired) and Tsuyoshi Wada (Japan) are both gone. Eric Jokisch, who made one start in 2014, and 14 starts in Triple-A Iowa in 2015, is also in the mix of potential starters in 2016. Travis Wood will also return, but barring a rash of injuries, it appears the Cubs are committed to using him out of the bullpen. The Cubs #7 prospect, Pierce Johnson, and #30 prospect, Ryan Williams, could debut at some point in 2016, but most of the Cubs pitching depth is at least a year away from contributing to the big league club. As has been reported by nearly every outlet, the Cubs will be actively seeking starting pitching this off-season. For now, let's look at what they already have. There's a 162 games, so the Cubs will need to find 162 starts out of the group they have. I'll divide it up like this: Arrieta (32), Jon Lester (32), Jason Hammel (29), Kyle Hendricks (28), Eric Jokisch (16), Dallas Beeler (16), Clayton Richard (5), and Pierce Johnson (4). You can't really project a major injury for a player, which is why I haven't, but I think this assumes an amount of health for the Cubs four best starters that shouldn't be assumed. If one of those four goes down with an injury, the Cubs would be in significant trouble. Jake Arrieta's 2015 season was remarkable. Even if he pitches as well in 2016, a reasonable amount of regression should be expected. A full 32-start season of Jake Arrieta is worth 5.8 WAR. Jon Lester really had an underrated 2015 that was overshadowed by his previously mentioned teammate. The lefty has been remarkably durable over his career, and another 32-start season in 2016 would provide the Cubs 4.5 WAR. After back-to-back seasons with a strong first-half, followed by second-half struggles, Jason Hammel enters 2016 as a guy with question marks around his reliability. If Hammel wants to remain in the rotation all season, he needs to show the second half spike in HR/FB rate in back-to-back seasons was more bad luck than a product of allowing too much hard contact. Jason Hammel is projected to make 29 starts for 2.2 WAR. Kyle Hendricks took an encouraging step forward in 2015, significantly increasing his K/9, while also improving his GB%. In the second half, he really emerged as the Cubs #3 starter. I have Hendricks making 28 starts in 2016, for 2.7 WAR. After Hendricks, it starts to get ugly. Jokisch gives 16 starts for 0.8 WAR. 16 starts from Dallas Beeler provides 0.5 WAR. Clayton Richards (5 starts) and Pierce Johnson (4 starts) each add 0.1 WAR. 2016 Projection: 16.7 WAR
Relief Pitchers - Travis Wood, Pedro Strop, Justin Grimm, Neil Ramirez, Yoervis Medina, Zac Rosscup, Carl Edwards Jr, and Hector Rondon are all under contract for 2016, and figure to play various roles in the Cubs bullpen. Trevor Cahill, Jason Motte, and Fernando Rodney pitched out of the Cubs pen in 2015 but will be free agents this off-season. Pierce Johnson, mentioned in the Starting pitching column, and the Cubs #19 prospect, Corey Black, could debut in 2016 and find a role out of the bullpen. There's talent here, but with uncertainty around the health of Neil Ramirez already, the Cubs need to add depth here too, and there will be plenty of opportunity in the coming months to do so. Individual values for relief pitchers are so small, instead of breaking down each player, as I've done with the other positions, I'm just going to go straight to total value for the current bullpen. 2016 Projection: 3.0 WAR
Conclusions - As far as position players go, the Cubs have three key objectives this off-season. 1. Improve in Centerfield. 2. Find a lead-off hitter. 3. Improve outfield defense. If the Cubs re-sign Dexter Fowler, that would complete the first two objectives. However, if the front office is confident that Albert Almora, or further down the line, Ian Happ, will take hold of the Center Field job, they may not want to commit long-term to Fowler. In that case, they may opt for a short-term, likely defense-first solution, via trade, as a place holder until one of those two prospects claims the job. If they choose to go that route, and want to avoid using Kyle Schwarber in the lead-off spot, they'll need to trade Jorge Soler to open up a corner outfield spot where they can address objectives 2 and 3. I think that's where the Jason Heyward and Alex Gordon rumors come in to play. The Cubs are in a really good position here. They have multiple options, and resources in the way of both cash and trade pieces to get what they need. You're going to hear a lot of rumors this off-season, as the Cubs are likely to do their homework on all available options. It's going to be interesting to see which direction they go.
The Cubs need to add depth to this pitching staff and it's no secret. Rumors are already flying and will likely continue throughout the off-season. My guess is, if they do pursue one of the elite free-agent starting pitchers, it's less likely they'll extend Jake Arrieta beyond his current arbitration years, through 2017. If they try to add a controllable mid-to-high-end starting pitcher through trade, it's more likely they'll extend Arrieta. Beyond that, I'd expect them to be shopping in the middle range for starting pitching, trying to add some much needed depth. I'm looking for them to add at least two, and possibly three starting pitchers this off-season. At least one of those should be of the caliber to slide into the rotation along Lester and Arrieta, ahead of both Hammel and Hendricks. As far as the bullpen is concerned, Chicago should be looking to add a late-inning reliever. They've already been tied to the premier free agent reliever, Darren O'Day. There's a few interesting options beyond O'Day, but for the Cubs to make significant upgrades, they may need to pursue a trade. I'm sure there will be plenty of rumors around Andrew Miller (Yankees), Craig Kimbrel (Padres), and Aroldis Chapman (Reds). We'll have to wait and see if the Cubs are in on any of those three elite relievers. Beyond adding a late-inning guy, the Cubs will need keep a look out for more big-arm, reclamation projects, like Trevor Cahill in 2015, to bridge the middle innings.
With a total of 45.3 WAR with this current roster, this team would be projected to win 93 games in 2016, which is very good. Even with this talented roster, there's still room for improvement in several areas. This is the time for the team to be bold in using all available resources to round out this roster. Expect the front office to be very aggressive in trying to get the Cubs back to the post-season in 2016 to make another run at that elusive World Series title.
I'm going to start by going through each position, looking at what the team has at that position looking towards 2016, ultimately giving an expected WAR (Wins Above Replacement) for each position. The base number of wins for a Replacement level team is 47.7, and I'll use that number, combined the with that team's projected WAR, to estimate how many games the 2016 version of that team would win based on the current roster. In my conclusions section, I'll discuss where the team can improve, whether or not there's a realistic path to compete for a title in 2016, and if not, what that team could do to accelerate the rebuilding process.
CHICAGO CUBS
Catcher - Miguel Montero, David Ross, and Kyle Schwarber are all under contract through at least 2016. I'd expect the breakdown to be Montero (92 games), Schwarber (40 games), and Ross (30 games). Montero will get the bulk of the work, with Ross behind the plate for Jon Lester's starts, and Schwarber getting the Evan Gattis treatment, splitting his time between Outfield, DH in AL parks, and Catching about twice each week. Willson Contreras, who won the Double-A Southern League batting title in 2015, will be added to the 40-man roster, and will likely begin 2016 in Triple-A Iowa. He's expected to debut at some point late in 2016, perhaps September, but with the Cubs already splitting time between three players, it's difficult to project a significant role for him with the Big League club unless injuries force him into the Catching rotation. Miguel Montero has been one of the best pitch framers in the game over the past couple years, averaging about 10 runs saves per 90 games. Some of that value from framing will already be credited to the pitching performance of the guys on the staff that worked with Montero last year, so I'll only apply half of the 10 runs to Miguel, adding 0.5 WAR to his value. Montero's contributions project to about 2.5 WAR. Kyle Schwarber can definitely hit, and at least showed he's not a disaster behind the plate in his debut season, even if he may not be ready to catch the Cubs top of the rotation pitchers. For the 40 games Schwarber will play behind the plate, he'll add about 0.8 WAR. David Ross, despite being a non-hitter at this point in his career, is still solid defensively, and one of baseball's best per-game pitch framers, which is the primary source any value he'll provide. For his 30 games, pairing mostly with Jon Lester, he'll add 0.2 WAR. 2016 projection: 3.5 WAR
1st Base - Anthony Rizzo played first base in 160 of the Cubs 162 regular season games in 2015. I'm sure the organization would like to rest Rizzo slightly more in 2016, but Chris Coghlan, Kris Bryant, and Javier Baez are the only three players on the Cubs current roster who played any first base in 2015, and that was for a combined total of 20-innings. It seems possible the Cubs could have Schwarber fill in occasional, though they may feel he has enough on his plate already, and may not want to add learning yet another position to his development. Dan Vogelbach, rated the #13 prospect in the Cubs system, could see some time at first, especially if there's an injury to Rizzo, but he's not yet been added to the 40-man roster, and could be a victim of the Cubs looming roster crunch, which you can read about here. I'm going to project 150 games for Rizzo, as I'd expect Joe Maddon to make it a point to get him more rest in 2016. To cover the other 12 games, I'll give all 12 to Kris Bryant. With there being plenty of other options to fill in at 3rd base, Sliding Bryant across the diamond for a dozen games is probably the most realistic solution given the Cubs current roster. Anthony Rizzo has put together back-to-back tremendous seasons for the Cubs, and 2016 should be no different. The Cubs can expect about 5.0 WAR from Rizzo in 2016, with 0.5 WAR tacked on from a dozen games of Kris Bryant. 2016 projection: 5.5 WAR
2nd Base - It's nearly impossible to know what to expect out of this position for 2016. Starlin Castro, Javier Baez, Tommy La Stella, Chris Coghlan, and Addison Russell (now firmly entrenched as the starting Shortstop) all saw significant time at second in 2015, and all are under contract for 2016. It's likely at least one of those players will not be on the team come March, but your guess is as good as mine. With Russell at Shortstop full-time, Baez is the Cubs best option at Second Base, but he also holds the most value of the remaining group, making him the most likely to be traded in my mind. Until this mess works itself out, I'm going to split playing time between Castro (80 games), Baez (50 games), La Stella (32 games). Coghlan has proven to be capable of playing second in a pinch, but with the Cubs current depth at the position, it's just not necessary. Castro projects to 0.9 WAR over 80 games. Baez for 50 games is worth 0.9 WAR. La Stella provides 0.2 WAR in his limited role. 2016 projection: 2.0 WAR
3rd Base - Kris Bryant, almost certain to be awarded the 2015 NL Rookie of the Year, will again be the Cubs third baseman in 2016. Bryant was everything Cubs fans could have hoped for at the plate in 2015, but the real surprise was his defense. Bryant entered 2015 with some question as to whether or not his defensive limitations would eventually force the Cubs to move him off the position. Not only has he proven he can stick at third base in the short term, but he measured above average with the glove in his debut season, suggesting third could be his long-term home. The Cubs will want to keep Bryant on a similar playing schedule to Anthony Rizzo, and with Bryant already penciled in for 12 games at first base, and likely to see some time in the outfield, I'll give him 120 games at third, which projects to 5.0 WAR. The remaining 42 games will be split between Javier Baez (30 games) worth 0.5 WAR, and Tommy La Stella (12 games) for no added value above replacement level. 2016 Projection: 5.5 WAR
Shortstop - After Starlin Castro was benched in early August, Addison Russell shifted from second base to shortstop, where he took over full-time duties and never looked back. Much like Bryant at third base, there was some question whether or not shortstop would be the long-term home for Russell, as it's expected, given his frame, he'll naturally add weight and lose range as he ages. However, in 2015, Russell was one of the best defensive infielders in baseball, and actually improved his UZR/150 after shifting from second to shortstop. It will be difficult for Addison to repeat that defensive value again in 2016, but even if he remains above average, his potential for growth and his current value to the Cubs are both enormous. With his patient approach at the plate combined with the ability he showed in the second half of 2015 to pull the ball in the air with some authority, I'm more bullish on Russell's offensive production for 2016 than the projection systems I've seen. In 2015, Addison ranked 28th among all qualified hitters with a 40.7% fly-ball rate, and was one of only three players from that selection with a ground-ball rate above 40%. As you can read here, fewer ground balls lead to more power, and GB rates for hitters don't peak until 24 or 25-years old. Addison Russell is coming off a 21-year old debut season. It stands to reason, his ground-ball rate will to decline as he approaches his prime, meaning his line drive and fly ball rates would see an increase. That fly ball rate in combination with a Pull% in the Top 50, as Russell had in 2015, leads me to believe there's power potential there that hasn't quite shown itself to this point. Over 150 games at Shortstop, Russell projects to 3.0 WAR. With both Baez and Castro still on the roster as of now, there's plenty of depth at this position. Given the current roster, Baez would be the Utility Infielder, and would claim the dozen off days for Russell, worth 0.2 WAR. 2016 Projection: 3.2 WAR
Left Field - Kyle Schwarber should see the bulk of his playing time here. Despite the memories we all have of him stumbling around the outfield against the Mets like the drunk guy on your softball team, by UZR, Schwarber wasn't actually a disaster in left field in 2015. Even if he's a below average defender in left, Kyle's bat is strong enough to provide the club plenty of value. With 40 games already committed to Catcher, and another 10 as the team's DH in Interleague Play, Schwarber will play 100 games in Left Field, worth 2.4 WAR. The other 62 games will go to the veteran utility man, Chris Coghlan, worth 0.4 WAR. 2016 Projection: 2.8 WAR
Center Field - Center Field is the biggest question mark on the team as of today. Dexter Fowler handled the job very well for the Cubs in 2015, but he declined Cubs qualifying offer last week and decided to test free agency. I want to make clear, Cubs fans shouldn't be angry with Fowler for declining the qualifying offer, as the offer is more of a formality on the way to free agency than it is a realistic offer. To explain it as quickly as I can, if a team offers a player the qualifying offer, and the player declines (no player has ever accepted), the team receives a compensation draft pick at the end of the first round if that player signs elsewhere as a free-agent. A team signing a free-agent who was offered a qualifying offer forfeits it's highest draft pick, with the top 10 picks being protected, in which case, that team then forfeits it's next highest draft pick. The reason Fowler, and every other player in the three years since the most recent CBA, would decline the qualifying offer is because the one year offer of $15.8 million, while a significant amount for one season, offers less guaranteed money and less stability than a multi-year deal. I think it's too easy to forget these guys are human beings, often with families. Even if the per-year value of the contract is less, players will almost always value the security of a multi-year deal over a one-year deal. For example, just last year, Michael Cuddyer rejected a $15.3 million qualifying offer from the Colorado Rockies to sign a 2-year/$21 million deal with the New York Mets. Obviously, the per-year value was significantly less, but with all contracts in MLB being guaranteed, the 2-year deal with the Mets provides more guaranteed money, and greater stability for Cuddyer and his family than the one-year offer. Fowler will do even better than that in free agency, as Fangraphs contract crowdsourcing (here) projects Fowler to receive a 4-year/$56 million deal, which I believe is tad low. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets north of $60 million, so declining the Cubs qualifying offer was definitely the right decision for Fowler. However, that doesn't mean he won't sign back with the Cubs, as the Cubs have a need at Center Field that must to be addressed through either trade or free agency. For now, a combination of Albert Almora, Arismendy Alcantara, and Matt Szczur would need to fill Center Field. All reports are that Almora's glove is ready to play in the Majors, but there's still some question as to whether or not he'll hit enough to be a full-time player. Even so, there's far more upside with Almora than Alcantara at this point. Even if Alcantara manages to reduce his K% below 30%, which he's yet to do in over 300 ML at-bats, he still appears destined for a career as a reserve player. Szczur is least skilled off the three, and would likely spend the season in Iowa unless injuries forced him to the Majors. With the Cubs current options, I'd expect Almora to get the majority of the playing time here. If there's one thing we've learned from the advancement of analytics in baseball, it's that we're still pretty bad at projecting who's going to be a good defender. With that knowledge, it's difficult to assign Almora a defensive value until we have more information, so despite the positive reports, I'll just assume average defense out of Albert. For 120 games, Almora is worth 1.0 WAR. Alcantara would clean up the remaining 62 games, for 0.4 WAR. 2016 Projection: 1.4 WAR
Right Field - There are plenty of reports the Cubs will look to improve their outfield defense in 2016, including straight from the front office, leading to speculation that Jorge Soler may be traded this off-season. For now, though, he's still on the team. If he still is come April, he'll be the team's primary Right Fielder. Soler's offensive potential is enormous, but at just 23, he's already something of a defensive liability, which limits his overall value to the club. He could potentially benefit from a shift to a slightly less demanding Left Field, but the Cubs already have a defensively deficient Kyle Schwarber parked in left. As of now, I'll project Soler for 110 games in 2016, for 1.0 WAR. Chris Coghlan would get 34 games, worth 0.2 WAR. The remaining 18 games will go to Kris Bryant, providing 0.5 WAR. 2016 Projection: 1.7 WAR
Starting Pitcher - Among the Cubs 2015 starting pitchers, Jake Arrieta, Jon Lester, Jason Hammel, Kyle Hendricks, Dallas Beeler, and Clayton Richard are all under contract for 2016. Dan Haren (retired) and Tsuyoshi Wada (Japan) are both gone. Eric Jokisch, who made one start in 2014, and 14 starts in Triple-A Iowa in 2015, is also in the mix of potential starters in 2016. Travis Wood will also return, but barring a rash of injuries, it appears the Cubs are committed to using him out of the bullpen. The Cubs #7 prospect, Pierce Johnson, and #30 prospect, Ryan Williams, could debut at some point in 2016, but most of the Cubs pitching depth is at least a year away from contributing to the big league club. As has been reported by nearly every outlet, the Cubs will be actively seeking starting pitching this off-season. For now, let's look at what they already have. There's a 162 games, so the Cubs will need to find 162 starts out of the group they have. I'll divide it up like this: Arrieta (32), Jon Lester (32), Jason Hammel (29), Kyle Hendricks (28), Eric Jokisch (16), Dallas Beeler (16), Clayton Richard (5), and Pierce Johnson (4). You can't really project a major injury for a player, which is why I haven't, but I think this assumes an amount of health for the Cubs four best starters that shouldn't be assumed. If one of those four goes down with an injury, the Cubs would be in significant trouble. Jake Arrieta's 2015 season was remarkable. Even if he pitches as well in 2016, a reasonable amount of regression should be expected. A full 32-start season of Jake Arrieta is worth 5.8 WAR. Jon Lester really had an underrated 2015 that was overshadowed by his previously mentioned teammate. The lefty has been remarkably durable over his career, and another 32-start season in 2016 would provide the Cubs 4.5 WAR. After back-to-back seasons with a strong first-half, followed by second-half struggles, Jason Hammel enters 2016 as a guy with question marks around his reliability. If Hammel wants to remain in the rotation all season, he needs to show the second half spike in HR/FB rate in back-to-back seasons was more bad luck than a product of allowing too much hard contact. Jason Hammel is projected to make 29 starts for 2.2 WAR. Kyle Hendricks took an encouraging step forward in 2015, significantly increasing his K/9, while also improving his GB%. In the second half, he really emerged as the Cubs #3 starter. I have Hendricks making 28 starts in 2016, for 2.7 WAR. After Hendricks, it starts to get ugly. Jokisch gives 16 starts for 0.8 WAR. 16 starts from Dallas Beeler provides 0.5 WAR. Clayton Richards (5 starts) and Pierce Johnson (4 starts) each add 0.1 WAR. 2016 Projection: 16.7 WAR
Relief Pitchers - Travis Wood, Pedro Strop, Justin Grimm, Neil Ramirez, Yoervis Medina, Zac Rosscup, Carl Edwards Jr, and Hector Rondon are all under contract for 2016, and figure to play various roles in the Cubs bullpen. Trevor Cahill, Jason Motte, and Fernando Rodney pitched out of the Cubs pen in 2015 but will be free agents this off-season. Pierce Johnson, mentioned in the Starting pitching column, and the Cubs #19 prospect, Corey Black, could debut in 2016 and find a role out of the bullpen. There's talent here, but with uncertainty around the health of Neil Ramirez already, the Cubs need to add depth here too, and there will be plenty of opportunity in the coming months to do so. Individual values for relief pitchers are so small, instead of breaking down each player, as I've done with the other positions, I'm just going to go straight to total value for the current bullpen. 2016 Projection: 3.0 WAR
Conclusions - As far as position players go, the Cubs have three key objectives this off-season. 1. Improve in Centerfield. 2. Find a lead-off hitter. 3. Improve outfield defense. If the Cubs re-sign Dexter Fowler, that would complete the first two objectives. However, if the front office is confident that Albert Almora, or further down the line, Ian Happ, will take hold of the Center Field job, they may not want to commit long-term to Fowler. In that case, they may opt for a short-term, likely defense-first solution, via trade, as a place holder until one of those two prospects claims the job. If they choose to go that route, and want to avoid using Kyle Schwarber in the lead-off spot, they'll need to trade Jorge Soler to open up a corner outfield spot where they can address objectives 2 and 3. I think that's where the Jason Heyward and Alex Gordon rumors come in to play. The Cubs are in a really good position here. They have multiple options, and resources in the way of both cash and trade pieces to get what they need. You're going to hear a lot of rumors this off-season, as the Cubs are likely to do their homework on all available options. It's going to be interesting to see which direction they go.
The Cubs need to add depth to this pitching staff and it's no secret. Rumors are already flying and will likely continue throughout the off-season. My guess is, if they do pursue one of the elite free-agent starting pitchers, it's less likely they'll extend Jake Arrieta beyond his current arbitration years, through 2017. If they try to add a controllable mid-to-high-end starting pitcher through trade, it's more likely they'll extend Arrieta. Beyond that, I'd expect them to be shopping in the middle range for starting pitching, trying to add some much needed depth. I'm looking for them to add at least two, and possibly three starting pitchers this off-season. At least one of those should be of the caliber to slide into the rotation along Lester and Arrieta, ahead of both Hammel and Hendricks. As far as the bullpen is concerned, Chicago should be looking to add a late-inning reliever. They've already been tied to the premier free agent reliever, Darren O'Day. There's a few interesting options beyond O'Day, but for the Cubs to make significant upgrades, they may need to pursue a trade. I'm sure there will be plenty of rumors around Andrew Miller (Yankees), Craig Kimbrel (Padres), and Aroldis Chapman (Reds). We'll have to wait and see if the Cubs are in on any of those three elite relievers. Beyond adding a late-inning guy, the Cubs will need keep a look out for more big-arm, reclamation projects, like Trevor Cahill in 2015, to bridge the middle innings.
With a total of 45.3 WAR with this current roster, this team would be projected to win 93 games in 2016, which is very good. Even with this talented roster, there's still room for improvement in several areas. This is the time for the team to be bold in using all available resources to round out this roster. Expect the front office to be very aggressive in trying to get the Cubs back to the post-season in 2016 to make another run at that elusive World Series title.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Let us discuss the following statements from Ben Carson
On November 4, 2015 Ben Carson released the following statement via Facebook, and I apologize for difference in appearance as I had to screen grab this message in three separate photos and then crop them to past here. Anyway, the point of this exercise will be to laugh at most of this, because if you're laughing, you're not sad.
Ok, first....
"Tonight, going through all of your questions, I wanted to touch on a few issues that seem to be asked by many people."
If you actually read through all of that, God Bless you, but you probably noticed, he failed to address a single fucking question or issue of any significance or realistic concern. So, this was pointless, and should have in no way inspired any greater confidence in this man's ability to Govern than we've had as he's rambled on comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. But pointlessness has never stopped our good friend, Ben.
"I would like to deal with one question tonight in some detail. The issue is experience. Several people ask what they should tell their friends when people say “I like Carson but he has no political experience”.
You are absolutely right — I have no political experience. The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,700 years of political experience. Are we sure political experience is what we need. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience."
Wrong! As the Huffington Post was quick to point out (here), "Thirteen of the 56 signers did not hold elected office before being elected to the Second Continental Congress in 1775,” Wagner said. “But most of them were good ol’ career politicians.". Swing and a miss! Not a strong start for the good doctor. Let's see if he recovers.
"What they had was a deep belief that freedom is a gift from God. They had a determination to rise up against a tyrannical King. They were willing to risk all they had, even their lives, to be free. Today we find ourselves with an entire class of politicians. No one in Philadelphia, during that summer our nation was born, dreamed that service was a career with a pension. America was the land of the Citizen Statesmen. They were merchants, lawyers, farmers — and yes, even doctors. They were willing to stand for freedom. Today, the political class stands in the way, not for the people. They demand pensions and perks. This is not what our Founders envisioned for America."
The first two sentences here are almost contradictory. Freedom, as the early settlers viewed it, was not something that was going to be gifted from God, because that's not how reality works, so it required the determination to risk their lives, rising up against a tyrannical King. Which, it should be stated, was as much about freedom from paying taxes without colonial representation in the British Parliament than anything, as upon arrival in the colonies, they were already afforded religious freedom, and so on.
The second part of this, is again, false. The way our current system of Government operates is exactly how our Founders envisioned it, because they designed it that way. The sense we have of our society being, and having been designed to be, in the dictionary definition, a democratic society, is incorrect. If you actually read the works dating back to the earliest modern democratic revolutions of the 17th Century through the Modern period, you'll find the prevailing idea of a properly functioning democracy is one where a small population, the elite, have to take an active role in running general affairs as the common interests can only be understood and managed by a specialized class of responsible, intellectual men, because, as Walter Lippmann stated, "the common interests elude public opinion entirely". Again, to quote Lippmann, the remaining citizens, the majority, their function in a democracy was to be "spectators, not participants, in action". Noam Chomsky explained, "Occasionally they are allowed to lend their weight to one or the other member of the specialized class, because it's a democracy and not a totalitarian state. But once they've elected their leader, they're supposed to sink back and become spectators of action, not participants." That's how it was designed, and that's what we're getting. All he's doing is perpetuating this idea of our American democratic society that is often mentioned, but never really existed. I guess there's an element of blind faith required to believe in that too.
"I spent my life treating very ill children. Over 15,000 times I gave my all to prolong their lives. I was blessed to do it. But when it came time for me to retire, I simply could not sit back any longer. These children became my family. What our government is doing to them is outrageous. I am prepared to risk all that I have to try and make a difference in their future. I built one of the nation’s best medical centers. I served for two decades on the boards of Costco and Kellogg. I built a national scholarship program."
The first part of this is actually commendable. Using whatever gifts or talents you have to treat others is worthy of praise.
Then he says, "what our Government is doing to them is outrageous". I don't have any clue what that means. Knowing his foreign policy stances, views on police violence, the war on drugs, economics, and so on, I can't imagine he's talking about sending them to fight in wars for profit, institutionalized racism, the private prison industry, wealth inequality. I think he might actually be pissed off about healthcare, which is a bit ironic from a guy who just spent a paragraph congratulating himself for his accomplishments in treating children's medical needs, but who the fuck knows.
The last bit is masturbation. I'm a four-time Fantasy Baseball Champion. I'm good at Yahtzee. I ran a frozen foods department. My car is paid off.
"My experience is very different than what we have come to expect. I grew up poor. I know what it is like to be homeless and hungry. I know the pain of poverty."
But now I'm rich, so get busy praying, bitches. You'll get no entitlements from me. Just some encouragement in words of Nat 'King' Cole.
"Pick yourself up,
Take a deep breath,
Dust yourself off.
And start all over again"
"I know what it is like to see water fountains you are not allowed to drink out of because of your skin color. I also know that once you peal back the skin, the brain is the same no matter what your skin color or continent you live on."
Says one of the most aggressive anti-LGBT candidates in the race.
"I know my faith is strong and my ego is small."
Says the guy with the no political experience, who's running because his ideas alone are so profoundly brilliant, they just might save this once great Nation.
"Bill Clinton was famous for saying “I feel your pain” — well, I have walked in your shoes."
Is that was Bill Clinton was famous for? Because if you asked me, what's Bill Clinton famous for? "I feel your pain" would never have come up.
"I do not have political experience, I have a life journey. A journey that not only made it possible for me to relate to so many different people, but also one where time and time again I was told I would fail, only to succeed."
Yeah, that's super unique. If that qualifies you for the Presidency, then 150-million people just became as qualified as you.
"My candidacy is different, that I grant you. I have neither Donald Trump’s money or Jeb Bush’s political network. However, I would trade a single child I treated for all of Trump’s money."
Yes, I quoted that last sentence exactly correct. He claimed he would trade a single child for all of Trump's money, which frankly, sounds like a bad deal for Trump. You'd have to think all of Trump's money could buy more than a single child. One who's had his brain operated on by Dr. Frankenstein over here, no less.
Seriously though, getting the money out of politics is an important issue. If we want to live in a society where our democracy more closely resembles the dictionary version than the one previously discussed, there needs to be an overhaul to the entire system. Guys like Trump and Carson are right, it is important for a candidate to not be indebted to the largest financial contributors to their campaigns, but that doesn't mean anything if all of your policy suggestions are already in exact agreement with those of the specialized class.
"While I admire the Bush family’s dedication to service, I too served — nights, weekends, holidays, birthdays and anniversaries with severely injured patients were my public service."
Ok, dickhead. Not only is the Bush family a bunch of war criminals, but their dedication to service was lying to the entire World, asking our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to further US business interests in several different regions. And at some point, you can't refer to what you did as service, in the same vein as military service, when you're being handsomely rewarded for your work, at very little personal risk and sacrifice. If that's the case, then we're all serving. NOT. THE. SAME. FUCKING. THING.
"I have experienced the American Dream. No where in the world, other than America, could a man whose ancestors were slaves, rise to become a leading brain surgeon and one day seek the Office of President."
Except Greece, Portugal, Brazil, All of Africa (most notably North Africa), Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Great Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Haiti, China, Spain, Cuba, The Netherlands, Algeria, Germany, France, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia. Basically everywhere. More and more perpetuation of this idea of American Exceptionalism that isn't in conjunction with reality. In fact, excpetionalism isn't even exceptional. It's ordinary, as it's been the belief of every Nation ever known. Doc is peddling more bullshit.
"The very fact that I am running is testament to the greatness of America. If all you want is political experience then I cannot be your candidate.
Thank you for staying up with me.
Goodnight,
Ben"
Go to bed, Doctor. We're all tired.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Introduction
If you're reading this, you have likely befriended me on the social networking outlet Facebook.com, and haven't yet muted my posts. If this is the case, you might remember I made something of a halfhearted pledge to write an off-season preview for each of the 30 MLB franchises. Well, this is that, more or less. I'd like to just take a quick moment to inform the reader (Hi grandpa) what my intentions are with this project, and why I've decided to do things this way.
First off, I had initially planned on starting in reverse order of the 2015 Standings to provide some amount of organization. I still like that idea, but there's no guarantee I'm going to remain interested in doing this long enough to complete all 30 teams. It's not like anyone reads these goddamned blogs, and I certainly don't have a managing editor to whom I must answer. This is Thunderdome. There are no rules. So, I figured it would be best if I just start with the team of most interest to the few people likely to read any of this, the Chicago Cubs. From there I will continue in reverse order of Standings. If this decision angers you, please direct all of your rage to my Twitter account: @OCBrooks7. I can't wait to hear from you.
Lastly, the largest obstacle was deciding on the format. I wanted to avoid doing this in a manner where I was trying to project individual decisions. I didn't want to break down free-agency team-by-team, where I just pencil in Daniel Murphy or Johnny Cueto as a potential fit for a dozen teams. I don't know what pressures are being put on each Front Office, so it would be a waste of time for me to try to guess whether or not they'll sign David Price or trade for Whogivesashit. Instead, my goal is to present where each team currently stands, and talk about what options they may have. I believe the most valuable thing I can offer is an idea of what each has at each position, where they can improve, what it would take to be competitive in 2016, and based on all of that, whether I feel they should commit to an aggressive approach, more of a rebuild, or just some simple tweaks. If that sounds like fun, well, good. If not, please refer to the Twitter account in the paragraph above.
Here we go. Chicago Cubs, coming soon....
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Regarding Solemn Matters
I have often thought about why I'm so interested in baseball. It's definitely not anything about the game itself. Like other sports, other than playing, and the emotional attachments of being a fan of certain teams, I actually find the game kind of boring. I long ago decided the answer was in the numbers. Everything in baseball is measured, and a statistic is placed on every event and even some non-events. The numbers by themselves mean nothing to me. I'm not a statistician or a mathematician. I failed my last semester of Calculus. I decided what the numbers provide is an explanation for what is happening on the surface. Being able to understand what you're seeing using these numbers offers the ability to reasonably predict future outcomes. Having the ability to analyze this data and understand it's significance offers a feeling of control over what otherwise seem like a series of random events. It's oddly comforting.
I think one of the most troubling aspects of the human condition is the acute awareness of an utter lack of control. Despite our willingness to elect leaders and construct organizations, the fact remains, nobody really has control. We're all just sort of mimicking each other and faking it. There are far more unknowns than answers. Some deal with this by turning to a religion, placing varying levels of responsibility for outcomes at the will of a higher power. Some suggest everything is left to random chance. Whatever you believe, there is one looming certainty awaiting all of us, and we all know it. This physical existence is going to end one day. That knowledge and that lack of control can be maddening. Many have questioned the point of it all, and many have attempted to give reason. I've just assumed with such a lack of control, lack of answers, other than the inevitable that awaits us all, it's probably insignificant what you stand for and what you believe. The real value is what you've created, what you're ready to leave behind. That's really all you can control.
The amount of love sent my families way in the past 36 hours has been overwhelming. I think it speaks to how much my grandparents gave. They never had much, yet they gave not just to me, not just to family, and not just to friends. They gave to people to which they had no obligation. I watched how well they treated complete strangers. I watched people come to their Church, unable to pay bills, or pay for medication, and my grandparents gave. They gave to each other. My grandfather, when diagnosed with cancer, leaned on my grandmother for support, and the strength, and motivation to fight. As my grandmother's health declined, my grandfather gave her the same treatment. The result was more time with each other, and for us, more time with them than I could have ever hoped, and far more than was predicted by the doctors. They gave us a tremendous example.
Seven months ago, my grandmother was released from the hospital after suffering a near fatal stroke. The change I witnessed in her from that time on was incredible. Every day tasks had become a struggle and the outlook for a significant recovery was somewhat bleak. However, she continued to progress, and all during the process, she joked and laughed more often than I could ever remember. I believe the extra time allowed her to develop an even greater appreciation for everything she had experienced and overcome in her life. She was able to spend precious time with her husband, with her 6 children, and 14 grandchildren, with a pride in what she had created, what she had passed on, and what she would leave behind. She was satisfied with what she controlled.
Shirley Perry will be missed greatly, but there is a piece of her that lives on in every one of us she influenced.
Love you, grandma.
I think one of the most troubling aspects of the human condition is the acute awareness of an utter lack of control. Despite our willingness to elect leaders and construct organizations, the fact remains, nobody really has control. We're all just sort of mimicking each other and faking it. There are far more unknowns than answers. Some deal with this by turning to a religion, placing varying levels of responsibility for outcomes at the will of a higher power. Some suggest everything is left to random chance. Whatever you believe, there is one looming certainty awaiting all of us, and we all know it. This physical existence is going to end one day. That knowledge and that lack of control can be maddening. Many have questioned the point of it all, and many have attempted to give reason. I've just assumed with such a lack of control, lack of answers, other than the inevitable that awaits us all, it's probably insignificant what you stand for and what you believe. The real value is what you've created, what you're ready to leave behind. That's really all you can control.
The amount of love sent my families way in the past 36 hours has been overwhelming. I think it speaks to how much my grandparents gave. They never had much, yet they gave not just to me, not just to family, and not just to friends. They gave to people to which they had no obligation. I watched how well they treated complete strangers. I watched people come to their Church, unable to pay bills, or pay for medication, and my grandparents gave. They gave to each other. My grandfather, when diagnosed with cancer, leaned on my grandmother for support, and the strength, and motivation to fight. As my grandmother's health declined, my grandfather gave her the same treatment. The result was more time with each other, and for us, more time with them than I could have ever hoped, and far more than was predicted by the doctors. They gave us a tremendous example.
Seven months ago, my grandmother was released from the hospital after suffering a near fatal stroke. The change I witnessed in her from that time on was incredible. Every day tasks had become a struggle and the outlook for a significant recovery was somewhat bleak. However, she continued to progress, and all during the process, she joked and laughed more often than I could ever remember. I believe the extra time allowed her to develop an even greater appreciation for everything she had experienced and overcome in her life. She was able to spend precious time with her husband, with her 6 children, and 14 grandchildren, with a pride in what she had created, what she had passed on, and what she would leave behind. She was satisfied with what she controlled.
Shirley Perry will be missed greatly, but there is a piece of her that lives on in every one of us she influenced.
Love you, grandma.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Climate change and baseball
If I have one more person try to tell me that because global warming has paused over the last 17 years, human beings must not be contributing to climate change, I'm going to explode. That argument is the product of searching for some evidence to validate a preconceived belief.
In the study of baseball statistics, it's kind of an inside joke to mention sample size, because although it's important identifying where data stabilizes and becomes informative, it can be applied to literally every piece of information. Any time something wonky happens, sample size is the easiest and often most accurate explanation, even if there's a far deeper cause for the deviation, often temporary, but occasionally permanent. It's funny because in something that can be so mathematically complex, a child can watch Mike Trout go 0-4 with 4Ks and identify that's not indicative of future performance based on a wealth of past information, yet as the selection grows even slightly, many overreact.
With the evidence present for the rise in surface temperature since the beginning of human industrialization, it's ridiculous to select a 17-year sample of slowdown, and present it as negating the long term evidence of climate change. There are probably a near infinite number of natural variables that could temporarily counteract the effects, and cause a hiatus. I'm far too dumb to explain exactly why because I certainly don't understand the intricacies of thermodynamics. There are plenty of theories out there, but I'm incapable of determining the accuracy of any of the work. I'm at the mercy of the author.
The best explanation I'm capable of giving is in terms of baseball statistics, of course. You can't take surface temperature data from a 120-year sample, select the most recent 17 years, and reach conclusions from that tiny sample. It's as unwise as taking ERA from a 120-inning sample, selecting the most recent 17 innings, and deciding that ERA is indicative of a true performance level, and of future performance. There's just too much noise in that data. If you strip it down further and analyze Velocity, K/BB, HR rate, pitch selection/sequencing, swinging strike rates, etc., you may begin to identify if the change in overall results (ERA) is just the result of natural variations in a small sample size, or if you're potentially seeing the beginnings of a change in skill level. Ultimately, you're just making an educated guess until you have enough data. It's the same when analyzing the data in climate change.
If we're equating surface temperature to ERA, there are other components of a climate system that can provide a more complete climate picture, as pitchers have other indicators that provide a more complete picture of their true performance . When studying the atmosphere, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating back into space. Scientists say the retained energy should be producing warming. A baseball analogy for that would be, when a pitcher allows more fly balls, you'd expect to see a higher number of homeruns allowed. Over 120 years we have seen that warming trend, and over 120 innings, you'd see an increase in homeruns allowed. However, over the sample size of 17 years/innings, it's entirely possible natural fluctuations in a complex system could cause a stagnation that's misleading. If you look at any pitcher in 17-inning samples, his HR/FB rate will fluctuate wildly without there being any real change in skill level. It takes time for that data to stabilize. Two other, often overlapping, components in the Earth's climate system is the hydrosphere and the cryosphere. Despite the recent hiatus in surface temperature, sea level rise has not stopped in recent years, and Arctic sea ice decline has continued. Again, this would suggest a continuation of climate change due to global warming, despite the pause in surface temperature. In baseball terms, this is comparable to a rise in BB-rate combined with a decline in K-rate. It's a clear indication of declining skill. Over a small sample, naturally variations can lead to ERA being unaffected, masking the declining skill, but like before, the data will eventually stabilize and reveal a true performance level.
In summary, you shouldn't just toss out 17 years of data, but you can analyze it, and combine it with past data, to make more reasonable assertions. Just as you shouldn't unthinkingly panic if Mike Trout hits .200 over the next month, or if Clayton Kershaw has a 4.50 ERA in July, you shouldn't dismiss a clear trend just because there's a relatively brief hiatus in one aspect of the progression. Try to understand natural variances in sample sizes. Children do it watching Mike Trout. Everyone is capable.
In the study of baseball statistics, it's kind of an inside joke to mention sample size, because although it's important identifying where data stabilizes and becomes informative, it can be applied to literally every piece of information. Any time something wonky happens, sample size is the easiest and often most accurate explanation, even if there's a far deeper cause for the deviation, often temporary, but occasionally permanent. It's funny because in something that can be so mathematically complex, a child can watch Mike Trout go 0-4 with 4Ks and identify that's not indicative of future performance based on a wealth of past information, yet as the selection grows even slightly, many overreact.
With the evidence present for the rise in surface temperature since the beginning of human industrialization, it's ridiculous to select a 17-year sample of slowdown, and present it as negating the long term evidence of climate change. There are probably a near infinite number of natural variables that could temporarily counteract the effects, and cause a hiatus. I'm far too dumb to explain exactly why because I certainly don't understand the intricacies of thermodynamics. There are plenty of theories out there, but I'm incapable of determining the accuracy of any of the work. I'm at the mercy of the author.
The best explanation I'm capable of giving is in terms of baseball statistics, of course. You can't take surface temperature data from a 120-year sample, select the most recent 17 years, and reach conclusions from that tiny sample. It's as unwise as taking ERA from a 120-inning sample, selecting the most recent 17 innings, and deciding that ERA is indicative of a true performance level, and of future performance. There's just too much noise in that data. If you strip it down further and analyze Velocity, K/BB, HR rate, pitch selection/sequencing, swinging strike rates, etc., you may begin to identify if the change in overall results (ERA) is just the result of natural variations in a small sample size, or if you're potentially seeing the beginnings of a change in skill level. Ultimately, you're just making an educated guess until you have enough data. It's the same when analyzing the data in climate change.
If we're equating surface temperature to ERA, there are other components of a climate system that can provide a more complete climate picture, as pitchers have other indicators that provide a more complete picture of their true performance . When studying the atmosphere, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating back into space. Scientists say the retained energy should be producing warming. A baseball analogy for that would be, when a pitcher allows more fly balls, you'd expect to see a higher number of homeruns allowed. Over 120 years we have seen that warming trend, and over 120 innings, you'd see an increase in homeruns allowed. However, over the sample size of 17 years/innings, it's entirely possible natural fluctuations in a complex system could cause a stagnation that's misleading. If you look at any pitcher in 17-inning samples, his HR/FB rate will fluctuate wildly without there being any real change in skill level. It takes time for that data to stabilize. Two other, often overlapping, components in the Earth's climate system is the hydrosphere and the cryosphere. Despite the recent hiatus in surface temperature, sea level rise has not stopped in recent years, and Arctic sea ice decline has continued. Again, this would suggest a continuation of climate change due to global warming, despite the pause in surface temperature. In baseball terms, this is comparable to a rise in BB-rate combined with a decline in K-rate. It's a clear indication of declining skill. Over a small sample, naturally variations can lead to ERA being unaffected, masking the declining skill, but like before, the data will eventually stabilize and reveal a true performance level.
In summary, you shouldn't just toss out 17 years of data, but you can analyze it, and combine it with past data, to make more reasonable assertions. Just as you shouldn't unthinkingly panic if Mike Trout hits .200 over the next month, or if Clayton Kershaw has a 4.50 ERA in July, you shouldn't dismiss a clear trend just because there's a relatively brief hiatus in one aspect of the progression. Try to understand natural variances in sample sizes. Children do it watching Mike Trout. Everyone is capable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)