A couple weeks ago I showed that the current Cubs offense was performing as poorly as any Cubs team in history. Their 77 wRC+ (at the time and still today) was tied for second worst in their history. wRC+ is but one metric that measures offense. It's based on Tangotiger's wOBA. Baseball Prospectus has a similar value based on their TAv (True Average). You could use OPS+ to approximate the quality of an offense though either of the other two would yield more accurate results. Baseball Reference uses batting runs (Rbat) to measure a player's contribution in runs above or below the average player. For pitching it's referred to as RAA (Runs Above Average), but for position players RAA includes baserunning and fielding. I'm not interested in including either.
I decided to take a look back to 1974 since that is the year I was born. I added the offense (Rbat) and pitching (RAA) together to get a team total. Three different seasons since then have been interrupted because of a strike. In 1981 they played only 103 games and the 1994 strike resulted in 113 games played that year and only 144 the following year. Several years going back to 1974 the team played only 161 and sometimes even 160. The 1998 team even played in 163 games. The current team has played just 122.
I converted all the totals to 162 games. This means I'm prorating the Cubs current totals, which implies they'll perform as poorly over the next 42 games as they have the previous 122. That may or may not be true. The Cubs could run off a month of quality baseball. They're not as good as they were through those 122 games due to various trades and injuries, but that's entirely possible. They could even be worse than they've been so far.
The 2012 team is 88 runs below average at the plate. This includes pitchers so it's not actually a perfect measure of how good the position players are, but I've included the pitchers for all the years so it's a pretty close. Besides, we know this team is bad offensively even if we don't include the pitchers. The pitchers are 68 runs below average. This kind of surprised me. I knew the pitching wasn't as bad as the offense, but it's not much better. These two combined equal -156 runs above average. That's -207 if we prorate it to 162 games.
Prior to this season, as well as throughout it, I've mentioned that this was the worst Cubs team in at least a decade. I was talking mostly about the projections, but if you included minor league talent I've stated this is the worst Cubs team that I can remember. This was a horrible team entering the season and they lacked talent in the minor league organization to give me all that much hope for the Cubs turning it around anytime soon.
As it turns out, the prorated -207 this season is the worst in my life. If the Cubs somehow managed to be an average team over the next 42 games and remained at -156, they would still be the 5th worst Cubs team since 1974. Only 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000 would be worse.
The 1999 Cubs are the only team even close to as bad as the prorated -207 runs above average this team has produced. The 1999 Cubs were -199. The Cubs will almost certainly fly past the 1996 and 1997 teams. Those teams were each -161 runs above average. This team is only a handful away. The 2000 team was -178 and the Cubs are almost certain to surpoass that. They are also likely to be the first team in my life to be 200 runs below average.
It will come as no surprise that the 2008 team was far and away the best they've been in my life. Remember, this doesn't include baserunning or fielding and there may be a better team though I doubt it. The advantage the 2008 team has over the rest of the field when looking at pitching and batting is huge. Their 170 runs above average bests the 2004 team by 43 runs.
There are a lot of Cubs fans who don't remember 2003 or 2004. The new generation of fans haven't been around the game long enough and have no recollection of those seasons. It's been nearly 10 years. In another 5 years it's quite likely that many fans won't even remember the best Cubs team since at least 1974. It's not all bad though.
Those fans currently have no recollection of how awful they were in 1999 and 2000. For that matter they have no idea how bad they were from 1996 through 2000. With the exception of 1998 when they won the Wild Card, those are the only years since 1994 that currently beats this team in being shitty at baseball. Those fans have no memory of that. In another 5 years they won't remember the awful -134 runs above average that the 2006 team was.
If the Cubs continue to play as poorly as they have so far, they will finish the season being 377 runs worse than they were just 5 seasons ago. They'll be 202 runs worse than they were last year!
The totals for each year are below.
Comments
It took me 6 minutes to make, so I’m carrying it over from last thread.
Mish wrote:
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
That is spectacular.
It would also be intentionally hilarious if you put a running/screaming Sylvester Stallone jumping out in front of the explosion.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Also, Cubs suck.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
(dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
Man I always forget how good that ’04 team was.
GBTSQuote Reply
8 times the Cubs have been -100 or more runs above average since 1974. Only 4 times have they been better than 50 runs above average (one of those years they were 51 RAA).
mb21Quote Reply
@ GBTS:
It’s too bad that the Astros and Cards went nuts that season.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Takes me back to when Carlos Silva struck out Albert Pujols:
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
(dying laughing) (dying laughing) brilliant
MishQuote Reply
There’s a lot of fail in that 38 years. But I swear, things will get better…
uncle daveQuote Reply
Matt Harvey, the pitcher, is hitting .455 so far this season. The beauty of small sample sizes.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I guess the Rockies have relaxed the 75-pitch limit.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
A few weeks ago SG on RLYW was referring to the Yankees as the Cleveland Spiders. This went on for several days. Now he’s referring to them as the1890 23-113 Pittsburgh Alleghaneys. (dying laughing) Must be nice to follow a 1st place team and make fun of them as the worst team ever.
mb21Quote Reply
Nice post MB (seriously). This will surely send Skinny Guy into a horrible spiral of depression. Poor Josh’ll have to draw it up.
Two thoughts:
1. I can’t believe the late 70s and early 80s were that good. Especially 80-81. I remember the Cubs being epically bad then. Correction: EPICALLY. Is it possible that the stats that go into the calculations have changed since then? Like something that we might use now wasn’t commonly recorded then? Probably just that the Fail Cubs of that era were more of an impression to a 12 year old instead of something I’ve acclimated to now.
2. This I’m not surprised about. The Cubs absolutely suck at hitting. That is, unless team average Rbat is negative across the league. But I assume the median team should be at 0, or thereabout, right? You can’t look at those number and not wonder what is up with the Cubs that they are congenitally unable to hit. Best Rbat = 17. OUCH. That’s an organizational fail all around. Amazing that Ernie Banks and Billy Williams can hang around with that crap year after year.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
1. No, the calculations are the same. I suppose it’s possible that stats are more accurate today, but I think by 1980 the stats were pretty accurate. I’m not sure there’s been an official stat added since then. My guess is that those teams were unlucky (poor hitting with runners on base for example). I’d have to look into it more.
2. Average Rbat in the NL is going to be below 0 thanks to the pitcher hitting. In the AL it will be 0. I’m not sure what the average in the NL is, but the Cubs have routinely been middle of the pack or worse in wRC+ among NL teams as far I can remember.
mb21Quote Reply
I’m thinking that my Avatar in honor of Brett Jackson is only jinxing him at the ML level. No other explanation for his struggles makes sense. Guess I’ll have to change it.
SVBQuote Reply
@ mb21:
Thanks. I guess saves came about in the 70s, right? Holds about 1995 or so. But those don’t figure into Rpit so that don’t matter here (or anywhere).
As for 78-81 +/-, probably the best explanation is that Mick Kelleher and Steve Ontiveros were starting. That in itself is enough to skew one’s opinion of a team. Ontiveros made Jeff Blauser’s Cub year seem Fantastic. Ontiveros would be as if the Cubs had someone like Ian Stewart starting at third and then replacing him with someone worse. (Oh, crap….)
(dying laughing)
SVBQuote Reply
mb21 wrote:
Interleague changes that slightly, I think.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
2003 was a good time. 2008 was amazing. Felt awesome for 162 games. Then it stopped feeling good.
I pray to Jebus this isn’t true.
joshQuote Reply
Bosox put A-Gonz on waivers
joshQuote Reply
I’d go with the 1981 team as the worst in my lifetime, even though I’m too young to remember them. Ivan DeJesus’ numbers… good god! And Ken Reitz was no better at third. Worst left side of an infield ever.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ josh:
Most players are on waivers. I get tired of people reporting “X is on waivers” as if it’s news. It isn’t. Ever.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ josh:
Too bad in-league has precedence or else I bet the Dodgers try to claim him first. Or maybe they will get the chance anyway since I doubt any other AL team claims him. Doubt the Red Sox just give him away though.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
I’ll put you on waivers!!
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
Would he get claimed by Miss Piggy?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I figure they’re fishing for trades. I was just thinking that the Bosox may be considering the option that they are out of it.
joshQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
It’s only news if a team gets Rios’d.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
The thing about waivers is that the team can just take the guy off waivers once a team claims him. There’s zero risk involved. Even if you have no interest in trading the player, there’s no reason not to put him on waivers.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ josh:
Well, they ARE 13 games back of first and 8 out of the wild card. But there’s still a chance since the Yankees appear unable to beat the White Sox.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Chapman didn’t get a strikeout, but got a save anyway. Somehow, that seems like a hollow victory.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
It seems telling, to me, in this particular circumstance. It’s probably reading into it, but the Red Sox have been faltering the last couple of seasons, and this just seemed interesting in light of their struggles. I understand that lots of players get fished this time of year.
joshQuote Reply
Say what you will about the 2012 Cubs, but if you told me at the beginning of the year that they would have, in late August, virtually the same chances of making the playoffs as the Phillies, I would have stared in disbelief. (How’s that for an optimistic spin?)
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
Yeah, I almost mentioned that, but figured saying it was 0 was close enough.
mb22Quote Reply
@ josh:
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the Red Sox would just let the claiming team have him unless they felt they could work out a decent trade. RTR is right though. Teams put most of their players on waivers. Most GMs will tell you that it gives you a head start on the offseason in that you get to gauge what kind of interest other teams may have in your players.
mb22Quote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
When you’re trailing the Orioles, it’s difficult to be optimistic. Crazy how recently the Red Sox were absolutely on top of the world. Bobby V really worked out.
joshQuote Reply
As a Giants fan I’m glad that the Dodgers got stuck with Joe Blanton instead of Ryan Dempster (dying laughing)
Hopefully this early Giants lead holds so I can gloat some more.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Nice series, Yankees.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Awww, Matt Cain lost his no-hitter.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
No shutout either.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
mb21 wrote:
2013 Cubs: Not Anymore
fang2415Quote Reply
Huh. Guess I wasn’t invited to this post.
2012 Silver LiningQuote Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHRMX9Brq0s
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
What’s that in aid of?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
It’s my song to Kobe Bryant:
They say it’s your birthday
Well, it’s my birthday too yeah
He got Dwight Howard for his birthday. All I got are sandals and a beer kit.
WaLiQuote Reply
Armando Galarraga almost perfect a couple years ago, DFA’d by the Astros this year.
Damn.
joshQuote Reply
Tango’s Fans Scouting Report (aside): http://obstructedview.net/aside/tangos-fansscouting-report-2012.html
mb21Quote Reply
Yes. Lack of grinding. That’s the problem.
joshQuote Reply
It’s hilarious that the Cubs have played in one of the more favorable hitters parks in baseball, but only managed an above average batting RAA twice since 1974 (dying laughing). Though I guess the NL pitchers hitting thing above plays a big role in that.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ josh:
Theo’s offseason to-do list: get better at grinding
mb21Quote Reply
@ Berselius:
Yeah, I don’t know how much the pitcher plays a role. I’m way too lazy to take the pitcher out. It would just be easier of the NL realized it’s the latter half of the 20th century and stopped having a person bat who never fucking practices.
mb21Quote Reply
This is pretty awesome: all of the original Star Wars in 3 GIFs.
http://foldsfive.blogspot.ca/2008/06/pixelmash-collection.html
MishQuote Reply
mb21 wrote:
Times swept this year
at Miami
———-
vs Philly (2 games)
vs White Sox
at Astros
at Pirates
(these four sweeps were in a row!)
————
at Giants (4 games)
at Arizona
at Cardinals
at Los Angeles of Los Angeles
at San Diego (2 series in a row)
at Milwaukee
The Cubs have swept
vs Houston
vs Arizona
vs San Diego
BerseliusQuote Reply
The Cubs have been swept by 10 of 15 possible NL opponents. Only 5 more to go!
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ mb21:
Grindy.
WaLiQuote Reply
new shit up
dylanjQuote Reply
@ dylanj:
http://obstructedview.net/minor-leagues/the-children-are-the-future-cubs-minor-league-update-sponsored-by-powerade.html
BerseliusQuote Reply