More photos » by Jim Prisching - AP

The Cubs' brass has their work cut out for them this offseason (AP Photo/Jim Prisching).

Browse more photos »

This post will be geared towards trying to find a way to build a team that can compete in 2010. Now, here are the rules I'll impose on myself: I'll start with the same figure Al used in his post: $145M for the upcoming season. In terms of objectives, I've got to find a way to get the team to the 90-win plateau. Why? NL Central champions have averaged 92.7 wins and NL Wild Card teams have averaged 90.7. If the Cubs want a shot at the playoffs, they'll need to build a team they can expect to get to at least the 90-win mark. How do we measure/predict whether or not the team can expect to total 90 wins? There are a lot of ways to do this. However, the one that provides the best combination of ease and accuracy is to use projections of wins above replacement (WAR). (By the way, I strongly recommend reading the 14-piece work at fangraphs on WAR I linked to there. It's an easy read, and hammers home how simple and yet comprehensive the WAR methodology is.) The debate as to whether that's wise let's try to leave for another day. Let's just leave it at this: nothing is perfect, but I've got to use something to keep me honest in my expectations, and that's probably the most accurate, rigorous option available to me.

The Cubs find themselves in a precarious position. They've got a lot of money locked up in only a few players, and that leaves them with little financial flexibility, particularly in the short term. Unfortunately, they also don't have much inexpensive help coming from the minor leagues in the near term. Most of their top prospects are mid-range arrivals. You almost certainly won't see any of them starting the season with the big league club, but you may see them by late 2010 or early 2011. The question is this: how do the Cubs bridge the gap between their current roster and the one that'll include current Cub prospects? Follow me past the jump to find out...

Continue reading this post »

More photos » by Nam Y Huh - AP

Chicago Cubs relief pitcher Carlos Marmol celebrates his closing of a game for the 2009 Chicago Cubs. Can the Cubs expect to see more of this in 2010? (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)

Browse more photos »

The Chicago Cubs are relying on Carlos Marmol to be their closer in 2010. Is this a good idea?

Well, Marmol is incredibly tough to hit.

(via www.fangraphs.com)

Marmol was tough to hit primarily due his ability to get strike outs at an incredibly high rate.

(via www.fangraphs.com)

In addition to striking out batters, Marmol also doesn't give up many home runs.

(via www.fangraphs.com)

So he's a great pitcher, right? He doesn't give up many hits or home runs, and he strikes out lots of opposing batters. I think everyone reading this blog knows Marmol's main issue. Control. Follow me past the jump to find out more...

Continue reading this post »

First, I want to say that I should be and plan to be around here more often than I have been since my original post. (For those that weren't around for it, I'm the new "stats guy" here at BCB. The first post was an introduction to me. This one is more of an introduction to the way i think about things.) I had an insane couple of weeks of work and some epic struggles with a code I’m developing for my research projects, including an episode where my computer was essentially telling me that 11 > 202. My goal is to post articles once a week, on Mondays. I’ll try to do some catching up going forward, but can’t make any promises. (I’m working on some really cool stuff at work right now, and haven’t felt stressed despite putting in lots of hours. That’s a situation that leads to me not having much time to spend on baseball.) Anyway, onto "this week’s" topic… My intention here is to give you some insight into how scientists analyze things as varied as baseball, supernovae, and fossilized bug bites. My hope is that by giving everyone a brief introduction to how scientists ask and answer questions, it will provide a better understanding of the source of the confidence sabermetricians (and scientists) have in their projections.

The scientific method is often summarized this way: research a topic, form a hypothesis, predict something based on that hypothesis, and then test that prediction. If the test results do not conform to the hypothesis, accordingly discard or refine the hypothesis. Either way, devise new tests for the (perhaps new) hypothesis and continue to improve upon it with repeated tests and refinements of hypotheses. Things that cannot be stated in the form of a testable hypothesis are not considered science, and do not factor into the scientific method. Examples of things that do not fall under the purview of science are statements such as: "there is a God," or "the Cubs are cursed." However, one can test the veracity of statements (hypotheses) such as "carbon dioxide can absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earth," and "there is a better correlation between a pitcher’s FIP (fielding independent pitching) one year and his ERA (earned run average) the following year than there is between his ERA in one year and his ERA in the following year." Such questions and statements fall under the purview of the scientific method, and they’re very useful things to consider because we can make – or in the case of fans, recommend – decisions based on extrapolations from these hypotheses.

Continue reading this post »

Look! It's a nerd... complete with graphs and stuff!

View full size photo »

This post is a bit of an extended introduction, and its title is a nod to this thread, where Al asked the question: "Why are we Cubs fans?" I'm going to expand on this question a bit to also let you know why I use statistics, why I care about them so much, and why I'm happy to take on a larger role talking about them here at BCB.

Let's start with the origins of my Cub fandom. I started out a very young White Sox fan, just like everyone else here... right? ;-) I could see Comiskey from our apartment building, and so I rooted for the White Sox to win so I could watch the fireworks. I also remember telling my dad that because we lived closer to Comiskey than Wrigley the White Sox were my "hometown team." The fact that Harold Baines lived in our apartment complex reinforced this notion in my mind. (Insert joke here about how even at a young age I was failing due to an over-reliance on logic and facts.) My dad, a lawyer, told me that we lived closer to Wrigley but that it was on the other side of our building and so I didn't realize how close it was. In other words, he lied. Well I bought the lie, and many Harry-filled summer afternoons later I was a Cubs fan for life.

There's something else that happened in those afternoons spent in front of a TV tuned to WGN. I watched games on TV with my dad... every. day. My dad was pretty old (over 50) when my parents had me and this meant that we didn't have the typical father-son relationship where we'd play catch in the yard or where he'd teach me how to hit a curveball. Instead, we'd watch games together and I'd ask him about everything... and I mean everything. Little details about the rules, strategies, numbers, stats - you name it, I wanted to know all about it. I suppose I did this to some extent with other sports, but nothing compared to the fascination I had in baseball and the passion I had for the Cubs. I think all the way back then I was already starting to become the fan I am today, with a love for the game but and an obsession about its details (more after the jump)...

Continue reading this post »