Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 877: The Cubs’ Crazy-Ridiculous Start

Episode Date: May 5, 2016

Ben and Sam talk to FiveThirtyEight author Rob Arthur about the Cubs’ historically dominant start to the season.

Hello and welcome to episode 877 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Prospectus presented by our Patreon supporters and the Play Index at BaseballReference.com. I'm Ben Lindberg of FiveThirtyEight, joined by Sam Miller of Baseball Prospectus. Hello, Sam. Howdy. So we are going to talk about the Cubs today. We haven't done a whole lot of Cubs salivating this season. Not that there has been any shortage of that elsewhere on the internet, but my friend and colleague, our friend, Rob

Arthur from FiveThirtyEight wrote about the Cubs yesterday, and he is joining us to talk about that article and other Cubs matters. Hello, Rob. Hey. So you wrote an article called The Cubs Start is Even More Dominant Than It Seems. Since that article came out, the Cubs naturally won again, ran their run differential another four runs higher. So they are now outscoring their opponents by 93 runs on the season. Can I just say that a run differential of 93 is very cool, but it's even cooler if you actually say the numbers. So can I say the numbers

sure they've scored 159 and allowed 66 yeah that kind of drives it home so rob you looked at the best starts to a season run differential wise and the cubs were on top of that list through their first 24 games. So you era-adjusted this before you arrived at a leaderboard. Why is it necessary to era-adjust team run differential? Two reasons. One is that run environment changes, right? So in a higher run environment, if you're, let's say, 10% better than the next best team, that 10% gets multiplied by the number of runs so that you have a larger absolute difference in run differential. The second reason, though, which is really the motivating thing, is the fact that teams

are much closer together in terms of overall talent than they used to be. So back in the 50s, say, there used to be a few dominant teams and a few really terrible teams and a lot of stuff in between. Now, as you've written about, Ben, and as other people have written about, all the teams are basically converging on 500, which makes the Cubs being so far above everyone else even more impressive. So I think I'm also kind of in love with these numbers right now, but the parity thing uh does that apply in

the nl as well because the nl is has also been pointed out it has like virtually no parity there's like seven or eight teams competing for five playoff spots um and the cubs it it has been noted before the pirates had played one good team they played three against st louis and otherwise the next best team they played was probably the Diamondbacks, and they've played seven against the Reds, a couple against the Braves, a couple against the Brewers, a bunch against the Rockies, and a bunch against the Angels. So I'm not bringing that up to say you're wrong,

because I'm not as good with things like standard deviation and stuff. Does that affect the conclusion that you would draw? Yeah, I think it does. I mean, that's totally a fair point. In fact, at the beginning of the year, I wrote that it's possible we're seeing this era of parity beginning to break up. One of the reasons is that was actually the Cubs and how highly they were projected by all the projection algorithms, COTA, ZIPS, Steamer, and so on. So it's possible that we're sort of at the end of this era, and from here on out, the spread and talent between teams is actually going to get wider again, and maybe that will make

the Cubs' numbers look less impressive than we now think. But even if that's the case, there's no question, but they're one of the top five starts in all of Major League Baseball history, which is amazing. Do any of you have any explanations for why there was this move toward parity over the last generation or so? And why, more importantly, because I think that those answers maybe are kind of known to some of us, but why it would be breaking up? Is there any reason why parity would be dissolving? Is there something about the structure of the sport that would be pushing parity away? I have some hypotheses, but not really well developed.

I guess when Ben and I were working on the analyst article recently where we quantified the value of front office analysts, we found that early on, the low budget teams adopted the analysts and were more aggressive about that, which makes sense. So if you think about those guys having a built-in disadvantage since they have a smaller budget and less ability to sign free agents and extend their own stars, but then they got this initial advantage, this bump from having these analysts and they were better able to take advantage of market inefficiencies, maybe that acted to kind of compress the overall distribution. And now what we're seeing is the bigger market teams

are investing heavily in analysts as well. And the Dodgers have one of the biggest departments and the Yankees have one of the biggest departments. And so maybe that slight advantage that allowed the small market teams to hang with the big market teams is now going away, and so we're going to see parity begin to expand again as the big market teams regain that advantage. There's also the way that it's just become assumed that if you're bad,

you will take kind of a gap year and rebuild, and it doesn't matter how bad you get. And Jeff Quinton wrote about this for BP. And part of that, though, that he also included is that it doesn't seem like over the last few years, in particular, we've seen a lot of teams trying to be too great, that it doesn't seem like teams that are projected to win in the low 90s are necessarily all that aggressive about trying to get to the high 90s. Maybe because sustainability is the buzzword. Sustainability is the key to a healthy franchise. And maybe because the playoff incentives

don't support it. Do you buy that? The notion that teams don't really try to be great anymore? And do you think that there's any reason that that would change? I do buy that. I think that there's very little value from going from a division winner to the best team in the league. There's not much point to that because the playoff structure is such that even if you are an incredible team, even a Cubs-like team, the best chance you have to win a championship is just to get into the postseason a bunch of times. You can't really guarantee a championship by being incredibly good in a given year. So I do think that teams are incentivized against building really dominant outfits like the Cubs have right now. It's just not worth it to them.

Yeah, it's interesting because when the new playoff format came in and we weren't sure what the consequences of that, we didn't know how that would change teams incentives exactly. But there was some talk on podcasts like this one that that there would be an incentive to be the best team because now you get to face a weakened wildcard team. It used to be that you would just play the wildcard team, which is, you know you would just play the wildcard team, which is, you know, not really any better than playing the worst division winning team or even the second worst division winning team, other than that you had home field advantage. But then with the two wildcard structure, it was sort of thought, oh, well, this team has to burn their ace and you don't have to face their ace. And it's interesting that that doesn't seem to

have really affected the playoff odds all that much, that teams haven't, like wildcard teams have been pretty successful, as it turns out, and at least the ones that make it through the wildcard game. And it hasn't really changed the incentives for the team that's pushing into the high 90s. So that's almost a little disappointing. I think that maybe part of the goal was to make as many games meaningful as possible, even for the team that's running away with the division. And it doesn't really feel like we pay attention to that race, particularly at the end of the season. And it

doesn't really seem that teams are paying that much attention to that race. Yeah, I agree. And I think maybe part of that is the renewed emphasis on relievers. And now that most managers seem to be aware that it's good to take a starter out the third time through the order, if you're in one of those playoff games, it's a different kind of baseball, right? And so even if you have a weak starter, if you know that you can take them out after four innings and throw in your incredibly dominant relief core, then it sort of mutes the advantage you have from facing that weak starter. You looked at the start through the first 24 games of a season and you found that the Cubs had what the best adjusted run differential

through that time, second best, I guess, raw run differential. Did you look at all at what the worst case scenario is for a team on that leaderboard? Were there any teams on that top 10 or so that you published in the article that didn't turn out to be really great? I mean, is there always a lot of regression in store after this sort of start, or do some teams sort of sustain it? I don't think any team sustained that rate through a whole season, because that would equate to like 120 game, yeah, equate to 120 game winner or something like that, which we've never seen. But some of them did flame out early in the playoffs. I think they

all made the playoffs, but a few of them won or lost their division series. So, you know, that again underscores the fact that it doesn't matter how good your team is going So, you know, that again underscores the fact that it doesn't matter how good your team is going from, you know, above 90 wins, you really can't guarantee any particular fate in the playoffs. Yeah. And FiveThirtyEight recently released its historical ELO ratings for baseball based on head-to-head matchups. And it gives us a way to assess the quality of any team at any point in time. It's a fun data set to play around with. And you use this to kind of gauge how historic the Cubs' rise from the cellar has been. So what did you find about that?

Yeah, so basically I looked at the Cubs since Theo took over, and they sort of bottomed out in terms of ELO rating at the end of the 2012 season, I believe. And at that point, they were second only, I think, to the Astros when the Astros were in full tank mode. Since then, they've gained 100 and some points of ELO, 120, I think, points of ELO. And if you look throughout Major League history, which we can do now with this huge ELO, 120, I think, points of ELO. And if you look throughout Major League history,

which we can do now with this huge ELO data set, over 521 games for a team to gain 120 points of ELO, that only happens about one, I think it's two or three times in every thousand similar stretches. So it's really incredible how rapidly the Cubs have ascended from basically one of the worst teams in the league, probably would have been the worst if not for the Astros, to not just the best team in the league, but the best by this huge margin, plus 93 runs or whatever.

So they pulled off the perfect rebuild. So perfect, in fact, that things went even better than anyone could have expected if you had laid it out a few years ago. Yeah. So the interesting thing, one of the many interesting things about their start is that they are underperforming their raw stats in some ways. They are 20 and 6, and yet their Pythag expected record is 22 and 4. And that's the case whether you look at base runs or third order record Or any of these things that try to adjust for sort of timing and context

If anything, those numbers say that they should be even better than they have been So in what ways have they overperformed, do you think? In what ways have they exceeded what was expected for them in ways that maybe are not sustainable um i think that it's it's gonna piss off some cubs fans to hear this but i think that jake arietta stats right now are probably not sustainable over a full season um he's been incredible it is literally though it is literally the case that he has done it over the course of almost a full season at this point. Okay, all right. He has a.84 ERA this year, and I think he has a.84 ERA over his last 190 innings.

Right. I guess the point I want to make, though, is that last season he had better peripherals than he does this season. This season his peripherals are good, but they're not good enough to sustain that kind of ERA, whereas last season they were, or very nearly were. So I think that it's likely that he's due for some regression. I think he'll still be, you know, probably one of the best pitchers in baseball, but I don't think that he can sustain this for very long. Of course, Jason Hamill is, you know is obviously going to be a big regression candidate. He's probably not a 1.24 ERA pitcher in the long run.

And John Lester will probably give up more runs. But really, what's also striking is, I mean, Ben cited that the wins reflect the performance and that the run differential reflects the even more detailed breakdowns. So they really truly are playing as good as it looks like they're playing. But the other thing that argues for them being this good is that when you eyeball it, there aren't that many clear cases of regression candidates. I mean, we just named three, although Arrieta, it's hard not to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Dexter Fowler. And Dexter Fowler is the one hitter. Dexter Fowler is the one hitter who will clearly regress. But then you look at Jorge Soler. He arguably is a good bet to do a lot better. Jason Hayward should do a lot better. And amazingly, they've done this without any Kyle Schwarber at all. The rest of their pitching staff, I mean, the FIP ERA gap isn't

that significant. They have a 2.96 FIP, and that's supported by the fact that over the past three months of regular season games, as Matt Trueblood wrote, they've been otherworldly at defense, really one of the great defensive units that we've ever seen. They also have the best base running we've ever seen. So they are currently at the moment, the best offense, best pitching staff, best defense and best base running by at least some leading measures for each of those. And so you can usually look and go, oh, yeah, well, you know, Aaron Horang is 7-0 for some team in April. That probably won't happen. But they're just, when you add and subtract the regression candidates, they kind of end up in a bit of a push. Yeah, I agree, which is stunning. It's not what you'd expect for a team that has a plus 93

run differential. You'd expect to see them doing them getting lucky, but it doesn't seem like on balance they're getting terrifically lucky. I mean, Munanori Kawasaki probably won't hit 500, but he's only one for two, so I don't think that's the main driver of this. And you could imagine more, I mean, if Javi Baez is really breaking out, you could imagine him being a bigger role in the lineup too. I mean, he Javi Baez is really breaking out, you could imagine him being a bigger role in the lineup, too.

I mean, he's only played 43 games, and he looks like potentially an all-star level player right now that they've hardly used at all. Did I say 43 games? I meant 43 played appearances. They have talent still in the minors as well, which is amazing. So, you know, the depth they have is just incredible. So even if one of these guys that's overperforming falls back down to earth or someone who's good gets injured, there's a reasonable chance that they could sub that player, sub someone else in who will be, you know, not terrible at least. So they're really in a good position.

So they've played at basically 125 win pace for, you know, 15% of the season or so. How much have they changed your expectations for them? I mean, obviously everyone expected them to be really good, something close to a 100 win team. How much have they bumped up your personal expected winning percentage for them over the rest of the season? I would say not that much. I don't know, maybe 3%. I mean, I think that they were very likely, I think we knew going in and I wrote an article going in that they were going to be this great team. So the fact that they are now playing like a great team is not surprising. I also think that there will certainly

be, I think that towards the end of the season, the front office and the coaching staff are smart and they'll start giving players some rest. And so even if they keep playing like this for, you know, even if they keep playing like this for 80 games, they'll start to sort of take their foot off the gas and give people some, some more rest and some more development that'll sort of push their, their end of season winning percentage down. So, you know, I don't think it changes the full season projection for them all that much, except to say that they are who we thought they were they're a hundred win team maybe more than a hundred win team and if they really want to go all out maybe they can get up to a record-breaking pace it's also the case

that they that with contending teams you usually expect them to reload a little bit in july though and it'll be interesting to see Whether they bother to do that But if they don't If they do add if they do What most contenders do and add a Big piece or two at the trade deadline then they would Even maybe be better Yeah if they could find somewhere

That they need to upgrade So just aesthetically speaking I mean you are a Cubs fan Which has nothing to do with your impartial, unbiased analysis of the numbers. But you are a Cubs fan. You live in Chicago. This must be fun. How are these Cubs to watch?

I mean, just sort of, you know, teams can be good and successful, but maybe not as exciting as other teams with the same record. So as Sam mentioned, they have sort of just been the best at everything. They walk the most and they hit for power the most and they are the best base runners and they're the best defensive team and they're just sort of the best at everything. So are they just a really fun team to watch as well as a really effective one? I think they're really fun, not because of all those things, but because they've got these young guys that are charismatic. And I think that some other

sort of juggernaut type teams, if you have a bunch of this roster assembled from free agents and that sort of thing, they might not be quite as enjoyable to see perform as well. But it's really cool to see that these guys were homegrown, they're interesting, they're kids, and they're all putting it together at the same time. So that, I think, adds this sort of extra layer of enjoyment to it. It feels like an organic great Cubs team as opposed to just like this monstrosity assembled from other teams' rosters. Yeah. And you tweeted recently that it seems like the entire fan base has imposter syndrome. Is that how you feel about this team? No, I don't know why I don't subscribe to that.

I think it's great to watch and I'm enjoying it. And I have no expectation that it's going to continue forever. And the playoffs being what they are, this doesn't guarantee that they're going to break the curse or anything. But I have gotten a shocking amount of pushback. Like every time I write something positive about the Cubs, it's like, oh, wait and see, wait and see, you're going to jinx them. Something bad is going to happen, blah, blah, blah.

It's like people, you know, won't let themselves be happy about this Cubs team, which is bad, you know, we should enjoy it while we have it. And when it goes away, as it probably will will um you know at least we had this time what is imposter syndrome it's when it's when you think that uh like you're a high-performing individual and uh you think that uh you're you're actually terrible and someone's going to find out that you're you're an imposter and you're not you're not actually as good as everyone thinks you are it's what we have basically basically. It's what most people have, I think.

What about backlash? I mean, it seems like there's always backlash when we start getting excited about teams, and there's always backlash about, it seems like backlash to teams that are just successful. Do you see a reason that a national audience is going to turn away,

turn against this team? Or will that have to wait until after the World Series because absolutely nobody wants to step on this fun if it means the Cubs finally breaking that drought? There's definitely going to be a backlash. I mean, there's a small but very visible and very vocal segment of Cubs fans that are obnoxious bros, and they're very easy to hate. And I think many people have hated them for many years.

And so now, now with them being, having a successful team to root for, it's going to make it so much easier to hate them and they're going to be so much more obnoxious. So that is where I expect the backlash will come from. Unfortunately, but I also think there's a lot of,

a lot of really great Cubs fans. There are fans of every team, and they're just excited to see their team be this successful. Many people, this is the first time in their lives they've seen anything like this. Yeah. This is the Impostor Syndrome Wikipedia page has led me to all sorts of other apparently related things, like, for instance, the Jonah Complex. Do you guys know the Jonah Complex? No.

Does it have something to do with the whale? It does, in fact. The Jonah Complex is the fear of success, which presents self-actualization or the realization of one's potential. It is the fear of one's own greatness, the evasion of one's destiny, or the avoidance of exercising one's talents. Which goes back to what I was saying at the beginning, or asking about at the beginning, of whether teams are no longer striving to be the 100-win juggernaut that we used to celebrate and that stand out in baseball history instead of just trying to win 91 every year. Yeah. MLB has a collective Jonah complex, I guess.

So what if they don't win everything? What if they win everything for six months and then they don't win the month after that? How bummed will you be as a Cubs fan? Because this is sort of the, you know, the sabermetric way of looking at baseball is that the regular season is really the way of determining the best team

and everything that comes After that is fun and It means something in a different way but It doesn't tell us as much about the quality Of the team and there's only so much you can do To affect the results then so How disappointed will you be If you get to see the best

Team in baseball trash every other Team for six months but then something Goes wrong in a short series I personally am not going to be that disappointed. I mean, I would love for them to win the World Series. I think that'd be great. But one of the nice things about this team that I mentioned before is that it's not like a one-shot type of thing. This is presumably the beginning of a dynasty. A lot of their players are young. They have this ongoing talent pipeline coming out to the minors. There's every reason to suspect that they will be one of the best teams next year and the year after that and the year after that. So it's just a matter of getting enough chances

to get into the playoffs that you, one of them, you get lucky and you win the World Series. So I won't be upset. I think everyone else will be super upset, especially non-baseball fans who pay attention just for this season, or casual baseball fans who aren't aware of how much of a crapshoot the playoffs are. But I mean, like last year, they had arguably one of the best teams in the majors. And, you know, it wasn't a big surprise when they didn't end up winning the World Series. And I think, you know, it's going to take a few tries probably. Is there anything you would do if you were Jed Hoyer? Or is there anything you would do if you were Joe Maddon differently right now or in the next couple months in anticipation of that five-game series? seven game series and then the other seven game series to try to give yourself better chances in the short kind of, uh, coin flippy nature of those series. Yeah. Uh, I think the one thing

that you mentioned is, uh, upgrading at the trade deadline, maybe getting a really dominant reliever or starter, um, to just boost your chances. It's particularly a reliever, I think. I mean, the bullpen's been good this year, but they don't have someone like Dillon Batantis or the Royals trio. They don't have anyone like that that's just, like, shut down. So I think that having someone like that in the relief corps would be great. But at the same time, you have to balance out with the fact that they do want to sustain this success for several years. So you don't want to give up too much to have that temporary boost.

So if the offer was right, then I think maybe getting a relief base or getting a really good starter. That's it. And if the Cubs are a historically great team at the end of the season and everyone starts using them as the new model for how you should build a team, is there anything that you think is reproducible about what they've done? Or is it just, you know, be brilliant and have all your prospects pan out and draft perfectly and trade for Jake Arrieta and have him become the best pitcher in baseball? Is any of that something that other teams could adopt and do themselves? Yeah, I think that a little bit of it is in the sense that they did go for, they didn't tank, but they did sort of give up some assets when they could have been,

when they were valuable in order to get future value. So I think that probably that kind of cyclical rebuild that they went through that I mentioned before in terms of ELO, I think that probably some other teams will think about copying that. If they're in a bad situation or they don't look as bad for the next couple of years, rather than try and struggle along at mediocre winning percentages, just give it all up and race to the bottom and hope that you can build up enough prospect to get back up to the top in a few years after that. All right. Well, I am enjoying this dominance. I have no rooting interest for any team,

but it's been a while since we've had a really dominant team, and I'm sort of enjoying the dominance. So, Rob, thanks for writing about it. We'll link to the article in the usual places. You can find Rob at 538 and on Twitter at NoLittlePlans with underscores between the words. Thank you, Rob. Thanks for having me on. All right. That's it for today. You can support the podcast on Patreon by going to

patreon.com slash effectively wild. Today's Patreon thank yous go to Alex McHale, Robert Milholland, Ian Coates, Kyle Bryson, and Dante Colombo. You can also buy our book, Thanks for watching. but you can find out everything that you'd ever want to know about the book and possibly some things you might not want to know at the official website, theonlyruleisithastowork.com. Sam and I will be doing a chat at Deadspin tomorrow, Friday, at 1 o'clock Eastern, so you can also check that out. You can rate and review and subscribe to the show on iTunes, and you can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectivelywild. You can get the discounted price of $30 on a one-year subscription to the play index by going to baseballreference.com and using the coupon code BP.

And you can send us emails at podcast at baseballperspectives.com or by messaging us through Patreon. We'll be back with another show tomorrow. We've got a couple guests coming on and I think it'll be an interesting episode. So we will talk to you then.