cwolf pointed out an article on Tangotiger's blog in which he says the following:
The Cubs are looking for a Director of Research & Development in their Baseball Operations. If you apply, make sure to say you “heard it from Tango”. Since we’re on the topic, I am now providing my consulting services exclusively to the Cubs.
That's awesome. This can't be anything but good news for the Cubs and their fans.
Back on ACB Mercurial Outfielder and I interviewed Tangotiger and you can read it here.
Comments
In the last thread I mentioned I thought the Cubs did have a decent chance of reaching the playoffs. Since “decent” could mean just about anything, let me explain. I think the Cubs are in a position that if several things go their way they could play in October. Last year I’d have been flat out shocked if the Cubs reached the playoffs. I thought the odds of doing so were probably under .1%. I don’t know what the percentage chance is, but I won’t be surprised if they reach the playoffs. I think it’s far more likely that they don’t. As mentioned, I peg them at about 72 wins, but with a true talent team of about 75 or so wins entering the season. That’s enough for them to reach the postseason if enough things roll their way. It’s not likely, but I won’t be surprised.
dmick89Quote Reply
a) This is amazing news, and an important piece as well.
b) We are the only 2 people who have commented on it so far.
MylesQuote Reply
Bit of history: Tom Tango’s Run Expectancy Matrix was one of the first things that really got me into sabermetrics (when I concluded that you had to be nuts to bunt).
MylesQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
Could there be a dumber way of saying that? I absolutely think I’m certain there probably isn’t, but then, I’m dumber than you.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Pretty sure it was that RE table that made me rethink bunts, but also Tango and MGL that made it clear that sometimes bunts are good. I think MGL wrote that chapter in The Book, but I could be wrong.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
I told you I’m dumb.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
I was too busy doing somersaults at the time.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Oh, absolutely not a hard and fast rule. Baseball Behind The Numbers has a pretty good chapter on the “sacrifice plays.”
MylesQuote Reply
Baseball Between The Numbers by Baseball Prospectus? I love that book. It’s one of two stat books I’d recommend to fans who are getting interested in sabermetrics (The Book being the other).
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
It’s the one. I’ve actually never read the Book, I really should get on that.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Probably a little more difficult to get through than BBTN, but one of the best baseball books I’ve ever read.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Mish was telling me about this (I also read the Book on his recommendation) so I guess I should get on that too.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Am I a hack if I say Moneyball is my favorite book?
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah…
I think it was a much better book than movie though the movie was enjoyable.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
BerseliusQuote Reply
This is fantastic
Mobile WaLiQuote Reply
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
joshQuote Reply
Is this for real? Because I’m also dedicating my consulting services exclusively to the Cubs.
AndCountingQuote Reply
I like to think this move is in direct response to all my anti-Hope Monster-ing negativity lately.
joshQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
BBTN was a thousand times easier to read than The Book (which I never got around to finishing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yes, that was MGL. That chapter was actually the main reason I bought the book, and it’s probably my favorite piece of sabermetric research ever. I refer to it whenever someone says that RE tables have refuted bunting as a strategy.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
In short, MGL’s finding was not that the bunt was overused (in fact, he though managers bunted about as often as they should), but rather that the bunt should be employed unpredictably with game theory and infield positioning in mind.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Part of the problem with arguing against the bunt is that the average result of a bunt attempt is much better than exchanging a runner advance for an out. Another major part is that it ignores game theory (keeping the defense honest.)
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
The surprise bunt when the 3B is playing back, or a not-so-obvious squeeze attempt when nobody is bothering to charge…those are probably the best uses of the bunt and definitely things I enjoy.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Basically, the 100-point bunt.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
He should bring MGL along just for comic relief.
GBTSQuote Reply
“I have an NDA.” About Ronny Cedeño? heh heh heh.
Anyway, I only lurked at ACB a little before the Jack Benny Alltime greatest season’s article, so I’m having a hard time with the history of the personalities here at OV. Am I the only one surprised that MB is now an optimist? I’m pretty sure if it weren’t for certain other comments about his choice of beverages, I would assume he is now sporting orange eyes, a red brim on his cap, and a beer gut….
I still see 100 losses. But that’s OK. When they only win 70, I’ll be the happiest guy here!
SVBQuote Reply
So, wait, the Cubs hired the guy who literally wrote The Book?
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
Theo must be the miracle worker we all hoped for if he was able to get Moses and Peter to come out of retirement.
SVBQuote Reply
So this has to raise our expected win total by at least 5, right? I mean if Theriot raises the WAR of everyone around him by 0.5 I expect at least that from TangoTiger
WaLiQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I just bought this book on a whim purely based on this thread. If it sucks, I’m going to throw my digital copy in the digital trash and EMPTY THE BIN!
Okay, so we have lost something valuable in the digital age.
joshQuote Reply
@ SVB:
I think he’s just slowly becoming more sarcastic is all.
And who would have thought it possible?
joshQuote Reply
AndCounting wrote:
Will dropping your name get me an interview with the Cubs?
EdwinQuote Reply
Steroids going to be making its round in the news cycle again: (h/t BN)
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2013-01-31/news/a-rod-and-doping-a-miami-clinic-supplies-drugs-to-sports-biggest-names/
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
That sound you hear is corks popping in baseball writers’ offices across the country, for having something to grandstand on in the dead weeks before ST.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I can’t imagine people are surprised by this new PED news. These guys will never stop trying to get an edge. Not when making $15 million a year compared to league minimum is within reach. Once you get the taste of that kind of money, it’s got to be hard to let it go.
MuckerQuote Reply
Mucker Once you get the taste of that kind of money, it’s got to be hard to let it go.
My presciousssssssssssss
/Heard in every clubhouse
mobile svbQuote Reply
@ mobile svb:
I bet Gollum had 80 power. He had a very high protien diet and had exceptional upper body strength.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
No way. While I admit he really grew into his frame the best he could, I wouldn’t compare him to Vogelbach. Gollum was fighting hobbits so it’s hard to guage his actual strength.
He is probably comparable to Fontenot. Similar size, both scrappy, sneaky power.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Gollum didn’t need power. His invisibility makes it impossible to call a strike against him, he walked in every PA.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Good point about fighting Hobbits. He had tremendous hand and eye coordination as evidence by his ability to catch a fish with his bare hands. I don’t know, 80 might be a bit high but he definitely had above average power. I think he could have had 40+ HR power and he would have probably reached based at a Bondsian pace.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I was thinking because of his non-existent strike zone. I didn’t even think about the power of the ring. He would have broke the SB record too seeing as how nobody would have seen him stealing a bag.
MuckerQuote Reply
If you thought Milton Bradley was a “clubhouse cancer”, just wait until you get a load of the guy who only eats raw fish, constantly talks to himself, and a demonstrated history of violence.
That’s either Gollum or Carlos Zambrano, I forget
MylesQuote Reply
Also, both are never going to end up with a ring
MylesQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
So maybe a 50 power, but a 75-80 hit tool.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
I would say that seems reasonable.
MuckerQuote Reply
How does Gollum grade out defensively?
EdwinQuote Reply
I’m thinking middle infielder with good range but excellent hands and strong throwing arm. 3B maybe.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
I was thinking Catcher. I mean, he already has that hunched over thing going on.
EdwinQuote Reply
This is a weird conversation even for this place.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Agreed. But at least it is baseball related (dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
This blog has the credibility equivalent of Mordor, so I think it works.
MishQuote Reply
Uh….
I’m working on my spreadsheet for my 2013 prediction, and my current projected win total is so high that dmick is blushing. I need to figure out what’s up.
MylesQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
The last time I seeded a weird conversation here it was about the size of teaspoon…
I had no idea this would take off like it has (neither did I for the teaspoon either) but maybe I should have, there is are a lot of scifi nerds in these parts….
(dying laughing)
SVBQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Gollum is only one player, not two.
SVBQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Without seeing it, my guess is that the league wOBA is off.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I’m not using wOBA: rather, I’m using this . League avg/obp could very, very well be off.
MylesQuote Reply
1st question of Bruce Levine’s chat today:
At least Bruce pretty much dismissed it.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I could be vastly overrating fielding and underrating injury attrition. I use Bill James projections for everyone for OBP/SLG/K/BB, and assume that the Cubs will give 10.3% of their PA to replacement-level batters (close to their 3-year average, positionally) and 15% of their IP to replacement-level pitchers (way lower than the 3-year average, but they have a “stockpile” of above-replacement arms). I’ve diagnosed many ways in which this could go wrong (the highlight of which is improving the -.2 WAR from 3B last season to 3 this year), but the general thrust is that I have a tentative projection that is a hair over .500 for the Cubs this year, a crazy assertion.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Myles:
3 WAR from Ian Stewart et al? I’m one of the most optimistic people about Stewart and even I think that’s way too high (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
No… just 2.1 from Stewart (dying laughing), and 0.9 from Valbuena (dying laughing)
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Did you “add” in Vitters?
EdwinQuote Reply
I thought Castro looked a little chubby.
Though I couldn’t really give two shits until I watch him in spring training.
GBTSQuote Reply
Edwin wrote:
This raises all sorts of philosophical questions.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Myles:
BJ’s projections generally have a relatively high league wOBA so that might be the cause of it. Also, I agree with berselius about Stewart. I’d be happy if he’s replacement level next year and be ecstatic if he could somehow contribute 1 WAR. I’m not confident he can even be a replacement level player.
dmick89Quote Reply
Aisle424Quote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/projections/updated-and-early-cairo-projected-standings.html
dmick89Quote Reply