From a commenter on a Bruce Miles blog post:

It looks as if our OF defense should be considerably improved this year. In terms of runs allowed change from last year, we could go from an injured Soriano in LF(-10.8 runs by UZR) to a healthy Soriano in LF (hopefully will be improved), from Bradleys (-4.1) to Kosuke's (17.9) in right field and from Kosuke's (-20.3) in center to Byrd's (-2.3) in center. That is at least an improvement of 40 runs over the season, without Soriano improving at all (Soriano has been positive the past 3 years in LF when healthy). By sabermetric standards, that is pretty important. If you figure projected win % as runs scored squared/ runs allowed squared + runs allowed squared(I think this is right), then the Cubs figuring runs scored as constant (707) and decreasing runs allowed by 40 (672 to 632), that should translate into about a .600 winning percentage. This method would have predicted the Cubs for a .525 win percentage this year and they actually had a .516 win percentage. The Cardinals had a .571 win percentage. Of course, this doesn't really factor in luck, or player performance fluctuation, etc, but it can give you a general idea of what could be expected based solely on the improvement of the defense in the OF.

My first thought when I read this was that it was all wrong.  Much of it is.  You can't take last year's numbers and expect them post the same figure.  Players age, get better, get worse, and so on.  However, is the 40 runs part right?

The Cubs were -19.8 UZR as a team last year.  Catcher's don't have a UZR, so below is how the players who played the most innings fared:

In order to figure out how much the defense has improved we have to know what they are projected to do.  Here's a link to the UZR projections for 2010.

The 8 "regulars" were -14.4 UZR.  I'm going to ignore all other spots than the 9 guys we expect to play the most innings.  Below are those UZR projections.

That's a total of 16 UZR.  So the Cubs "regulars" are in fact expected to be 30 runs better on defense.  I'm not sure about the back-ups.

30 runs is a 3-win improvement.  We've already taken these figures into account in the player projections we've been posting here so this doesn't add 3 wins onto what we've found so far.  It's just how much better we think the 2010 team is on defense.  That's it.

Cubs optimal lineup vs LHP

• Xavier Nady
• Derrek Lee
• Alfonso Soriano
• Aramis Ramirez
• Geovany Soto
• Ryan Theriot
• Jeff Baker
• Marlon Byrd

Sky Kalkman published the Phillies and Yankees optimal lineup using The Book's rules.  I thought I would take a quick stab at the Cubs lineup vs. right-handed pitchers.  I'm going to do another post of their lineup vs LHP and tonight or tomorrow morning I'll post a longer explanation.  The lineups may change slightly. I'm using Berselius' average projected numbers to establish the rankings for the hitters.  For example, the 3 best hitters vs righties are Ramirez, Lee and Soto in that order.  The one with the least power bats leadoff.

Cubs optimal lineup vs RHP

• Geovany Soto
• Derrek Lee
• Alfonso Soriano
• Aramis Ramirez
• Kosuke Fukudome
• Ryan Theriot
• Marlon Byrd
• Mike Fontenot

Everytime someone mentions instant replay in baseball there is always numberous people who are going to argue that baseball can't lose the human element of the game.  It's never made sense to me.  Baseball's umpires are paid to get things right and as humans, they are going to make mistakes.  However, the sole purpose of the umpires is to be the game's arbiters.  We can't expect Aramis Ramirez, the Cubs, Yadier Molina and the Cardinals to agree on which pitches are balls and strikes.  We can't expect that Albert Pujols and Alfonso Soriano are going to come to an agreement on a close play at 1st base.  That would never happen because both parties have only one incentive: win.  There's no incentive to be honest in baseball.  Soriano isn't going to get paid more if he correctly called himself out while trying to steal a base.  That's not how it works.

We have umpires for this.  However, in this digital age, it is possible to accurately call many of the same things that umpires still do.  It's inevitable that technology is going to replace much of what the current umpires do.  You can never get rid of the umpires on the field, but we can get things right and that is the only job that these umpires have.  So why wouldn't we embrace change that can only make the game better?

The answer to that for many is the so-called human element.  They argue that the umpires represent the human element of the game.  They also argue that wrong calls are part of the game and should be left alone.  It leaves me scratching my head for a couple of reasons.

First, events are clearly defined in baseball's rules.  Few of them call for any of them to be interpreted by another person.  The strikezone is clearly defined.  Safe and out are clearly defined.  Most every rule is defined clear enough that it leaves no room for interpretation.

Second, what was Alfonso Soriano's game winning grand slam?  What was Aramis Ramirez's walk-off home run?  What were Sammy Sosa's 66 home runs in 1998?  What was Jody Davis' grand slam in 1984?  What were Sandberg's two home runs against Bruce Sutter?  What was Kerry Wood's 20-strikeout game?  What was Carlos Zambrano's no-hitter?  What were all of the other tremendous things that the players have done? What were all of the bone-headed plays that these athletes have made?  (audio for most of those can be found on the audio page)

They are the only human elements in baseball worth protecting.  We watch this game, because we want to see the players play baseball.  I don't know a single person who watches baseball to see the umpires.  I don't know a single person that wouldn't prefer an important call be called right.  I don't know anybody that doesn't complain about the umpires more than they complain about anything else.

Oddly enough, many of the people who complain about the idea of replay are also the most vocal about baseball's integrity.  Supporting a decision that guarantees more calls will be wrong does not in any way help the integrity of the game.  In fact, it's quite the opposite.

The truth is that the human element of baseball is those who play it; not the ones who are officiating it.  That's the way the game was set up and that's the way the game should evolve.  The human element is protected.  When someone starts talking about replacing the athletes with robots, I'll side with those arguing that we maintain the human element.  Until then, do whatever you can to get things right, because that's the umpire's job.  That means that we install instant replay for more than just fair/foul home runs.

Andrew Simon has put together a pretty good preview of the 2010 Cubs.  You may remember that Simon wrote for cubs.com last year and introduced the readers to the idea of Soto's low babip being a large reason for his below average season as well pointing out that RBI is a team dependent stat.  Those aren't concepts you read much in the newspaper and probably even less so on the mlb.com sites.

Simon's new blog is Hitting the Cutoff Man.  Back to the 2010 preview, here's a little quote.

Paint By Numbers: Of all pitchers who threw at least 50 innings last season, Marmol had the sixth-highest K/9 ratio at 11.31 but also the second-highest BB/9 ratio at 7.91. Marmol's .171 batting average against trailed only Jonathan Broxton. ... In his 2008 rookie season, Geovany Soto put up a .332 BABIP (comapred with the league average of about .300), but last season that number fell to .246, helping to explain Soto's steep decline. If Geo bounces back in 2009, many will say it's because he got in shape, but a closer to average BABIP likely will play a role as well.

It's a really good preview.  He talks about UZR, wOBA, FIP, and WAR.

The Cubs are stressing more aggressive baserunning this spring, which is never a bad idea. -- Mike Bauman

That was a really bad idea.

Another bad idea.

The Cactus League is at the half-way point and tomorrow is the only off-day of spring training.  The Cubs have played 14 games and had 2 rained out (same day).  The season doesn't start for just under 3 weeks, so there's still plenty of time.  However, the longer the starting pitchers work, the less work there is for relievers.

We have begun and will continue to see the arms that Lou is strongly considering for the 25-man roster.  Caridad, Mateo, Stevens and Russell got in some work in today's game.  Lou  has already said that Caridad has made the team and with Guzman's injury, he's going to be the right-handed set-up man.

Caridad has done nothing to change Lou's mind.  After a 19-inning stint with the Cubs last season in which Caridad allowed 15 hits, 3 earned runs, walked 3 and struckout 17, he went into spring training as a strong favorite to make the team.  Lou said early on that Caridad wouild have to pitch himself off the team and so far he's thrown 6.1 innings, allowed 4 hits, no runs, walked only 1 and struckout 6.  Look for Lou to begin setting up his bullpen in the next week so that he can begin using the combination of Caridad, Grabow and Marmol in the late innings.  I think Caridad has done enough at this point and we can safely pencil him in the bullpen.  Lou's a big fan.  And why not?

Caridad looks headed towards later innings than expected, barring a move by Trader Jim. Caridad is a little stronger at this point than Patton, just about 2 mph off his 93+ average fastball from 2009. He did crack 94 a couple of times, so he's not far from his 95 that makes me so giddy. He threw a couple of his slow slurvey sliders, one sinker but no change-ups. Of the nearly 300 pitches he threw in the majors in 2009, only six were change-ups, so the lack of those today is no surprise.

The big takeaway from Cardidad's day is he warmed up twice. Finishing off the 8th for a struggling Jeff Stevens (see below), Caridad struggled himself in the ninth. Still, his two fastest pitches (94.6) both came in the ninth, and one was his penultimate offering of the game. Looks like he's rounding into shape nicely. Keep in mind, he broke 95 mph 39 times last year, 97 seven times, including his top pitch of 98.2 mph. -- Harry Pavlidis

James Russell has had almost equally impressive spring.  Through today's game, the lefty has tossed 5.2 innings, allowed 4 hits, no runs, walked 2 and struckout 7.  Russell just turned 24 and was drafted in 2007 out of the University of Texas.  He's 6'4", but not a hard thrower.  He had been a starter in 2007 and 2008, but in 2009 25 of his 37 appearances were in relief.  Most of the innings were still as a starter though.  He has an unimpressive 4.6 ERA in the minor leagues, but that's primarily as a starting pitcher.

He's a flyball pitcher, so he's going to give up some home runs at Wrigley Field.  Like Caridad, he has really good control.  His BB/9 rate in the minors is 2.6 and although he doesn't strike many out, his K/BB rate is still higher than 2 to 1.

The Cubs have enough lefties in the bullpen though and starting Russell would probably not end well.  He's not good enough to start at the big league level.  Sean Marshall likely won't win a starting gig so he'll be in the bullpen and they also have John Grabow.  Russell isn't on the 40-man roster while another lefty John Gaub is.  Gaub has had an OK spring.  He's thrown 4.2 innings, allowed 2 hits, 2 runs, 2 walks and 6 strikeouts.  Gaub is the left-handed version of Carlos Marmol and to be honest, this team already has enough walk-happy relievers.

Gaub appears to have made the bullpen if you believe such an outstanding beat writer like Paul Sullivan.  We should give Paul some credit.  Since he's been the Cubs beat writer he's broken a grand total of 0 stories.  That is, unless John Gaub makes the bullpen.  I'm well aware I will get in trouble for saying that, but oh well.

But if Russell continues to pitch well, there may end up being a competition between he and Gaub.  I don't see the Cubs having 4 lefties in their bullpen and they shouldn't, so one of Russell or Gaub doesn't make the team.  Both may not make the team.

The Cubs 40-man roster stands at 39.  Jim Hendry has been trying to trade for a late-inning reliever for awhile now.  Gaub is on the 40-man roster while Russell is not.  It wouldn't take much to create room for Russell if they chose.  Angel Guzman is going to miss the entire season so he'll be placed on the 60-day DL, which opens up a spot on the 40-man roster.  So in reality, the Cubs have 2 open spots on their 40-man roster.

Mike Parisi must make the 25-man roster or be returned to St. Louis.  Parisi has thrown 6.2 innings, allowed 5 hits, 3 runs, a walk and 4 strikeouts.  Generally speaking, you'd think a Rule 5 would have to pitch his way onto the team, but last year the Cubs used a 24-man roster most of the season so they could keep David Patton.  If the Cubs return Parisi to the Cardinals, they'd have 38 players on their 40-man roster and one of them would be Angel Guzman who will be on the 60-day DL.

Site News

Mercurial Outfielder's Strange Fruit series has been added to the new site and is all on one page.  Check it out here.  They are 4 of the best articles written on ACB.

I mentioned in the comments that we'll be having a roundtable.  I'll be emailing a series of questions that probably won't take anybody longer than 15 minutes to complete.  If you're intersted in taking part, send me an email at mb21 (at) anothercubsblog.org.  Note the .org (not .net).  I'll send the topics out in a few days and if you could get them back to me in 10 days, that would be great.  I need your email to send the questions out so please send me an email rather than saying you're interested in the comments.  Thanks.

I realized after posting last night's path to 90 wins that I made a couple of errors.  First, Dan Szymborski was using the ZiPS projections rather than an average projection.  If I'm going to apply the improvement he found, I should also use ZiPS.  Second, I improved each player's wOBA by 8 points, but Dan only studied the players who had 400 PA in their first season under Jaramillo.  It makes no sense to apply the 8 point improvement to each player since we have no idea whether or not the improvement exists for players with less than 400 PA.  Finally, shawn and berselius pointed out that I should be using the platoon at 2nd base.  They each agreed that skipping the platoon in RF was the right call since Nady will begin the season on the DL and can't play the outfield yet.

I've made those changes.  The numbers below show an 8 point wOBA increase in their ZiPS projections for all the players projected to get 400 or more PA.  These are based on our playing time projections.  This won't affect the outcome that much since the bulk of the playing time will go to those getting 400 or more PA.  I used berselius splits projection tool and the ZiPS wOBA to get the platoon splits for Fontenot and Baker.

Once again, these numbers have to be considered carefully.  While there is reason to believe that Jaramillo will improve the Cubs hitters, it's not something we should rely on.  In other words, the actual projections are still the best way to go, but we're just seeing what has to happen for this team to win 90.  Below are the projections that include the 8 point wOBA boost to those with 400 or more PA.

Berselius' 2.0 projections (average projection system) had the position players being worth 20.4 WAR.  The ZiPS projections are about 3 wins better than that and adding in the wOBA increase is worth about 3 wins.  Keeping the pitching projections the same, that puts the Cubs at 91 wins.

We saw earlier today that Rudy Jaramillo helps out a player in his first year by about 18 points of OPS.  Dan was nice enough to send me the excel file.  It includes projected OPS and actual OPS so I can't really calculate a wOBA, which is necessary to calculate WAR.

I did take all of the 2009 hitters in MLB and plotted their OPS and wOBA on a graph and saw that an 18 point increase in OPS is the equivalent of about 8 points of wOBA.  That's not exact by any means as OPS figures that OBP and SLG are equal, which is incorrect.  This post isn't meant to be accurate, but rather to give us an idea how much impact Jaramillo might have on the team if the players improve at the rate that Dan found in his article on ESPN today.

When Dan sent me the file, he included this little bit that is important.

Adding 18 points of OPS to Soriano was probably a little too aggressive from the findings (that little bit was added post-submission!), but testing it, it's at least likely that Jaramillo could have been worth 5-10 points of OPS.  I was actually a little surprised to find it as I usually don't find much of an effect other than confirming Bradbury's similar look at Mazzone a few years back.  Isolating a coach is damn hard, of course, and it can only barely be done when you have a significant coach that has been around for an extremely long time in very stable environments.

While that is important to the findings, I'm going to ignore it for this post.  The reason is that any way we can expect the Cubs to win 90 games is going to require some unlikely things happening.  That's kind of the point of the how the team gets to 90: what are those things that are unlikely that could happen that would get this team to 90 wins?

I took berselius' 2.0 post on the Cubs projections and added 8 points of wOBA to each hitter.  I made a few adjustments though.  I eliminated the platoons at 2nd and RF.  Nady is not going to be playing the outfield the first 2 months of the season and is going to start the year on the DL.  It appears that Fontenot is going to be the everyday guy at 2nd so no need for a platoon there. Below are the new projections for the position players.

The 8 point increase in wOBA, as well as getting rid of the platoons, which costs the team runs, adds 3.8 wins to the club.  If you think there will be a platoon, add a little more.  I didn't make any changes to the pitching projections of course.  Below is the new team total.

There are about 500 plate appearances missing here so it's reasonable to think of this team as a 90-win team.

However, there is a great deal of uncertainty in this.  If use were to use the 5-10 point OPS increase that Dan mentioned above, that's about a 3 point increase in wOBA per player rather than 8.  That would put them at about 86 wins.  Still, we're better off just hoping that Jaramillo can help the offense out this much and not expecting it to happen.

The path to fewer wins

Lou named Ryan Theriot the team's leadoff hitter today.  We've been hoping for a platoon at the leadoff spot with Theriot and Fukudome.  Theriot is the worst hitter in the lineup vs. righties.  His projected wOBA vs righties is .317.  It's .342 vs lefties, but Theriot does get on base really well against them.  Fukudome's projected wOBA vs righties is .349.

The obviously right decision here was to platoon the two, but the reality is that it's not going to cost the Cubs that much.  It's just frustrating because the Cubs can't afford to give away a few runs.

Apparently Kevin Millar is likely to make the team.

Dan Szymborski has an article up on the ESPN Saber blog (Insider) about what we can expect from Soriano in 2010.  The interesting part is about Jaramillo's impact on hitters.

In total, I projected 58 players for their first seasons with Jaramillo. On average, the 58 players exceeded their OPS projections by 18 points, with more than a quarter of the players (16 of 58) beating the computer by at least 50 points. It's difficult to use statistics to evaluate a coach, but given that Jaramillo's charges have a solid history of matching or beating expectations and the Rangers have had solid offenses for most of the past 15 years, there's at least some indication that he knows what he's doing.

He's considered the best hitting coach in the game and the Cubs paid him like it.  He's gotten great reviews from just about every player he has coached and Dan's research shows that he does in fact make hitters better.

I might try to take that 18 point increase in OPS into consideration for future projections.  That wouldn't be an 18 point increase in wOBA, but probably around 5 or 7 points.  Thereabouts.

h/t to Rodrigo Ramirez