This Cubs Lineup Might Be the Most Disciplined Lineup Ever

We all know by now about velocity being up league-wide and strikeouts having been on the rise for more than a decade. If you didn’t: welcome to baseball in 2016! Everyone throws 95 and there’s darn near 20 strikeouts a game now.

The inverse of that, naturally, is that walks are harder to come by. Pitchers are working outside the zone more than ever and hitters aren’t adjusting, and they’re having a harder time catching up to the heat even when it’s inside the zone. Hitters are finding themselves behind in the count far more often than we’ve seen in the past, and in the last two years, we’ve seen the two lowest league-wide walk rates in almost 50 years.

Which brings us to this year’s Chicago Cubs, who aren’t playing by those rules. They’re off to a ridiculous start, with a 6-1 record and a league-best +29 run differential. Their pitchers have struck out 56 batters and walked just nine. Thus far, they’ve looked every bit the powerhouse folks envisioned in the offseason. And there’s another part of this Cubs team that’s staying true to preseason expectations, an important part of the team’s DNA that hasn’t been given much publicity. It’s not a sexy characteristic, which would explain the lack of fanfare surrounding this trait, but it’s an important one. The 2016 Cubs have a very real chance to be the most disciplined lineup we’ve ever seen.

To be clear: when I say “ever,” I’m talking about the post-expansion era, since 1961, and when I say “disciplined,” I’m talking about walks. The Cubs are going to strike out. They might strike out more than anyone. But team strikeout rate has almost no correlation with underperformance. As long a lineup gets on base and hits for power, they can lead the league in strikeouts and be just fine. The Cubs plan to do just that.

So far, this season, the Cubs lead baseball with a 13.1% team walk rate. It’s not expected to stay that high, but it is expected to stay the highest. I pulled team projections for all 30 clubs from our depth charts page, which uses the ZiPS and Steamer projection systems and manually updated playing-time estimates, and I calculated team walk rates. The preseason forecasts looked like this:

ProjTeamBB

It’s the Cubs in front, by a landslide. I’d be remiss not to mention that the Cubs lost Kyle Schwarber, a high-walk guy, for the season, and replaced him with Jorge Soler, a lower-walk guy. Just know that the rest-of-season projections still forecast the Cubs with a 9.9% walk rate. Essentially, nothing changed.

The Cubs, as a team, are still projected to draw a walk in one of every 10 plate appearances. Only nine other teams come in above 8%. Only two other teams at 9%. The difference between the Cubs in first and the A’s in second is the same as the difference between the A’s in second and the Mariners in 11th. The Cubs, here, are three full standard deviations above the mean, making them an actual statistical outlier. That’s when you know you’re dealing with something truly unique.

So here’s the Cubs, projected for the first double-digit team walk rate in six years, and living up to that lofty forecast in the early going of the season. On its own, the 10% walk rate is already impressive, but it becomes even more impressive when we consider that walk rates are as low as they’ve been in decades. A 10% team walk rate in 2016 is exponentially more impressive than a 10% team walk rate in the late-90s.

So let’s gain some historical perspective. It’s a relatively simple thing to do. All we need is team walk rate and league walk rate. Divide the former by the latter, multiply by 100, and we’ve got an indexed statistic, like OPS+, where 100 is league average. The Cubs are projected for a BB%+ of 130, meaning their walk rate is expected to be 30% better than league average. How would that rank, in the post-expansion era?

Top 10 League-Adjusted Team BB%, 1961-Present
Year Team BB% LgBB% BB%+
1993 Tigers 11.8% 8.8% 134
2016* Cubs 10.0% 7.7% 130
1992 Athletics 11.3% 8.7% 130
1994 Yankees 11.5% 9.1% 126
2001 Padres 10.8% 8.6% 126
1994 Tigers 11.4% 9.1% 125
1999 Athletics 12.00% 9.6% 125
1991 Tigers 11.0% 8.8% 125
2004 Giants 10.9% 8.8% 124
1973 Expos 11.1% 9.0% 123
*Projected team and league rates using FanGraphs depth chart (ZiPS+Steamer) projections

Very, very well. The projections see the second-most disciplined team in more than 50 years, and the first-most disciplined in more than 20. They’re within spitting distance of first. Maybe all it takes is Soler Addison Russell or learning to control the strike zone a bit better to put them over the top, ahead of the 1993 Tigers. Maybe Kris Bryant takes such a step forward offensively that pitchers start working around him even more. With this projection, the Cubs are well within reach of posting the most impressive single-season team walk rate we’ve ever seen.

But it’s not just about walks. Walks are important — because base-runners are important — but they aren’t everything. Those base-runners still need to turn into runs, and the best way to do that is to hit for power.

Well, the Cubs have that covered, too:

BBvsISO

The same team that might have the best walk rate we’ve seen in more than 50 years is also projected to be this year’s best power-hitting team. To think of it in simple terms: any pitch that’s a ball, this Cubs lineup is liable to take, and any pitch that’s in the zone, this Cubs lineup is liable to hit out of the park. Now how is someone supposed to pitch against that?

Last year’s Cubs were already impressive in both of these categories. Last year’s Cubs posted a 9.1% walk rate, indistinguishable from the league-leading Dodgers, and were a top-10 power-hitting team. Then, they added on. The skillsets the Cubs acquired in the offseason fit perfectly with their apparent offensive philosophy. They retained Dexter Fowler, whose career walk rate is north of 12%. They went out and got Ben Zobrist, whose career walk rate is north of 10%. Jason Heyward’s career walk rate is also north of 10%. That’s where the extra walks come from. It seems like this is the mark of Theo Epstein, whose Red Sox teams led baseball in walks for nearly a decade. This year’s Cubs seem poised to top that. This year’s Cubs will wear you down.



Print This Post



August used to cover the Indians for MLB and ohio.com, but now he's here and thinks writing these in the third person is weird. So you can reach me on Twitter @AugustFG_ or e-mail at august.fagerstrom@fangraphs.com.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Zonk
Member
Member
Zonk
3 months 11 days ago

Great article! I’m no expert, but Anthony Rizzo in particular seems to work the strike zone as well as anyone. He changes his approach with 2 strikes, and always seems to have a good AB, even when he makes outs. Not sure if the stats bear that out, but he just seems like a batter with a plan

MonkeyMan
Member
Member
MonkeyMan
3 months 9 days ago

Completely agree. I’m just scared he’s eventually gonna get a broken wrist from standing so close to the plate.

A Flock of Seagers
Member
A Flock of Seagers
3 months 8 days ago

So you have said ‘Theo and Jed believe that to win baseball games, a team needs to control the strike zone’ and then you have defined ‘controlling the strike zone’ as ‘walking more than the other team’. In other words, you apparently think that the most important statistical measure which a team should aim for is walking more than the other team. Are you joking? Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim? If you have a lot of money, do you spend it on cocaine instead of my hoes?

Curious Gorge
Member
Curious Gorge
3 months 8 days ago

GiantsFanJohn, still at it under a different name! You’re drunk, John. Go home.

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
Member
Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
3 months 8 days ago

You say, “accompanied by Jed believe to get a baseball game, lost control of the region,” and then we have to define the “control room” in “any more than other groups. Said Alternatively, you can rate this looks like the most important statistical team must that the aim of the other. what do you think? you do not have evidence to support this claim? If you have more money, spend it on crack users, not me bitch?

Zonk
Member
Member
Zonk
3 months 11 days ago

Theo Epstein is on record as stating the stirke zone in baseball is like the line of scrimmage in football…everything flows from command of it, either as a pitcher or batter. It’s the most important factor in baseball success or failure.

Shirtless Bartolo Colon says in Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back to John Elway
Member
Shirtless Bartolo Colon says in Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back to John Elway
3 months 11 days ago

Also much like the Contracancha in Jai Alai or the Ruckman in Aussie Rules Football.

CCSAGE
Member
CCSAGE
3 months 11 days ago

Oh man, you beat me to it!

bglick4
Member
bglick4
3 months 11 days ago

Or like controlling the Jurujery Dragon in Pokemon?

Hmmbug
Member
Hmmbug
3 months 10 days ago

+1 for the username.

Shirtless Bartolo Colon
Member
3 months 9 days ago

Laughing Horse myself now.

Just neighin.

Brett W
Member
Brett W
3 months 11 days ago

Does league-adjusted team BB% exclude pitchers? Comparing AL and NL teams is otherwise inequitable.

output gap
Member
Member
output gap
3 months 11 days ago

Theo and Jed believe that to win baseball games, a team needs to control the strike zone. This roster is built to make every pitch a battle with the opponents, hitters with discipline and pitchers who pound the zone.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

Well they sure aren’t doing this so far this year. The Cubs’ hitters are 14th in Z-swing% and 11th in Z-contact%. How does this show that they’re controlling the strike zone? Seem pretty average. The Cubs’ pitchers are giving up the highest Z-contact% by far of any team in the major leagues (91.6%) and are #23 in swinging strikes (9.3%). Way below average. What is leading you to believe that this team is controlling the strike zone?

output gap
Member
Member
output gap
3 months 10 days ago

48 BB taken, 12 BB given up through 8 games.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 9 days ago

That isn’t controlling the strike zone, that’s just walking a lot. And contrary to the title of this article, the cubs aren’t displaying discipline to an extent never seen in baseball history, they’re just walking a lot. All the statistical evidence we have suggests that walking is the only special offensive ability they have. How about if we just stick to the facts and refrain from drawing great cosmic conclusions. They walk a lot. Good for them.

Alfrs
Member
Alfrs
3 months 9 days ago

Pretty sure when you pound the strike zone you’re going to give up contact …in the strike zone. Lots of strike outs isn’t command of the strike zone. Few walks is. Why’s that hard to understand?

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 9 days ago

So you have said ‘Theo and Jed believe that to win baseball games, a team needs to control the strike zone’ and then you have defined ‘controlling the strike zone’ as ‘walking more than the other team’. In other words, you apparently think that the most important statistical measure which a team should aim for is walking more than the other team. Are you joking? Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?

Alfrs
Member
Alfrs
3 months 9 days ago

Two different people bud. Check the usernames. I was just dismantling you’re argument of using percentages saying they aren’t controlling the zone.

Few walks is controlling the strike zone. Period. You’re pounding the zone. Consistently. When you’re attacking the zone you are pitching IN the zone. When most of your pitches are in the zone, you aren’t walking people. Most of your hits are going to be from the strike zone when most of your pitches are in the strike zone. Not walking anyone is controlling the strike zone. They aren’t walking anyone.
See how this comes full circle?

Spartacus
Member
Spartacus
3 months 9 days ago

Ignore GiantsFanJohn… he’s just pissed that his team isn’t getting enough attention… it’s not like all this time he’s spent here arguing against the Cubs is going to have any actual effect.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 7 days ago

So to win baseball games the most important thing is to throw pitches in the strike zone? Doesn’t seem very hard. Just throw all your pitches right down the middle of the plate. They’ll get creamed, but you’re ‘controlling the strike zone’.

Well, it’s hopeless to argue with Cubs’ fans. They’ll just choose whatever statistic their team is good at and claim that this is the key to winning. And when they don’t win they’ll have some other explanation.

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
Member
Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
3 months 7 days ago

To win a baseball game, so that’s the most important thing is to throw the courts strike zone. It does not look very hard. Just throw your terrain in the middle of the table. They are known, but you control the Strike Zone. “So, it is useless to argue with fans young. They just pick up all the statistics of the team is good and told what to victory. When beaten all have a different explanation.

Spartacus
Member
Spartacus
3 months 6 days ago

@GiantsFanJohn,

Small sample size of course, but it 2015 Cubs Hitters’ walk rate was 9.1 and K rate was 24.5. This year their walk rate is 13.3 and K rate is 20.5 (which is 7th best in all of baseball).

Meanwhile their pitchers walked 2.52 per 9 innings last year and struck out 8.81 per 9. This year their walking guys 1.92 per 9 and struck out 8.36 per 9.

They’ve improved in three of the four categories. They had some problems exposed in the playoffs and made moves to rectify them. It’s early, but so far there has been improvement. There’s over 5 months left to see if it sticks.

Why is it so important to you to decide how Cubs fans think? Is there a reason why this is the only article you’ve commented on?

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 4 days ago

Congratulations, the cubs have managed to beat up on some weak teams for 9 games. Why is it so important to try to draw grandiose conclusions from that?

joedodger
Member
joedodger
3 months 11 days ago

The most important stat, not mentioned in the story, is the number of teams on that list that went on to win the World Series. Zero. And as I recall, as best as possible for me, the Orioles were the only ones who even made it to the World Series. So, hooray, for the Cubs, but is walking more often (er, at a very high rate) an indication of a winning team?

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 11 days ago

Yeah the chart is just relevant to walking, the cubs are also a top 10 power team and a top 5 pitching team. I understand the anti cubs narrative but people should also be able to appreciate a truly well built and we’ll rounded team.

Joser
Member
Joser
3 months 11 days ago

Being a “winning team” and “winning the world series” are two very different (albeit related) things. The winningest team in the past century, the 2001 Mariners, didn’t even get to the World Series. The postseason is a crapshoot. Being a winning team doesn’t even guarantee you a place in the postseason, let alone a shot at the World Series. Of the teams in that table, the ’92 ‘As and the ’71 O’s went to the post-season; the ’67 Tigers missed it by one game and the 2004 Giant’s missed it by two. And the ’94 Tigers and Yankees didn’t have a chance because of the strike (though the Yankees were leading the AL at the time).

Winning the World Series is certainly the goal, but every year 29 of the 30 teams will fail to achieve it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I considered “winning the world series” to be the most important stat for my team, I would have a sad, miserable existence as a fan. Even Yankees fans had to make due with something else in all but 27 years.

So let’s focus on “winning.” Every team on that list except the 2001 Padres and the strike-shortened ’94 Tigers had a wining record. Including the Cubs so far, the total win-loss for those teams combined is 759 – 606, a collective 56% winning record, which would equate to a 90 win season. That may not be “the most important stat,” but it’s a pretty good one. And a much better measure of “winning” than just counting Word Series.

Phil G
Member
Phil G
3 months 11 days ago

There are many ways to win a championship.

The 1963 Dodgers had their three top power guys hit 28, 16 and 12 homers respectively, and their highest RBI guy had 88. With Koufax and Drysdale though they were able to win it all.

The 1936 Yankees had only two starters with an ERA under 4.00, and their best strikeout pitcher had a mere 118. This was DiMaggio’s rookie season though, and he and four other teammates had 107 RBIs or more each, and they slugged their way to the top.

Earl Weaver’s 1970 Orioles won with “pitching, defense and a three run homer”.

The 1995 Braves won it with a balanced lineup and arguably the best starting rotation of all time.

The Royals last year did it with amazing defense, good contact hitting and a lights out bullpen.

The Cubs are a very patient team who walk and slug. Their pitching staff is a plus, and they improved their defense from last year. They haven’t broken the curse yet, but they look like they’re gonna take a hard swing at it. And their patience at the plate will be a big factor in their doing so.

bglick4
Member
bglick4
3 months 11 days ago

The most important stat, also not mentioned in the story, is the number of teams named the Cubs that won the world series. I mean, walk rate doesn’t matter a whit when you’re cursed. So, hooray, for the Cubs, but is being the Cubs an indication of a winning team? The answer is no. How high will their walk rate be after Dexter Fowler accidentally takes out Bryant, Rizzo, Heyward, and the Zobrilla? Not very high.

Spartacus
Member
Spartacus
3 months 11 days ago

Oh look, the butthurt Baltimore fan with his “Orioles Majik” is back. Still upset over losing Fowler?

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
Member
Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
3 months 10 days ago

The most important indicator, is also not mentioned in the story, the name of the theme of the cubs to win the championship. I think an increase in key interest rates as they cursed. Hooray for you, but only victory cubs. The answer is no. How high the price of their trip after Dexter Fowler accident Briant, Rizzo, and Haivard Zobrilla? Not quite high.

jruby
Member
Member
jruby
3 months 10 days ago

Haivard Zobrilla would win the “Top 10 Baseball Names” competition every year for life.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

If a team doesn’t care about the postseason and just wants to win in the regular season, it’s their business, and aiming for a lot of BBs and HRs seems to be a good way to do it. But these teams are likely to ‘underperform’ in the postseason because they are built for taking advantage of opposing pitchers’ mistakes, specifically lack of control and putting pitches where hitters can crush them (as opposed to managing to produce runs without the opposing pitchers making mistakes). In the postseason, pitchers make far fewer mistakes, because (1) teams which make the playoffs have pitchers who make fewer mistakes, that’s how they make the playoffs, (2) in the postseason, teams have 4-man rotations rather than 5-man rotations, and they start the top guys in their rotation as much as possible, and (3) managers pull tiring starters faster and go with their best relievers as much as possible without much concerned about whether the starters will get demoralized by being pulled too fast or the relievers will get exhausted by being used too much. Teams which rely on pitchers’ mistakes don’t do well in the playoffs because they face pitchers who make very few mistakes and they aren’t designed to produce runs against pitchers who don’t make mistakes. Teams which do well hittingwise in the playoffs are the ones who can manage to put up runs even when the opposing pitchers aren’t making mistakes. To say ‘the postseason is a crapshoot’ implies that a random assortment of teams get there and they perform there in random ways which are statistically indistinguishable from how they perform in the regular season, but it’s obvious that this isn’t true.

Dominikk85
Member
Dominikk85
3 months 10 days ago

It seems to be true that “three true outcome” Teams slightly underperform in the postseason but that is a very minor effect (about 1% or so I think).

what matters more is how good you are. even if the cubs lose 1-2% of their offensive edge in the PS their offense is still top notch. if they lose in the PS it is more likely either bad luck or the other Team being hotter at that time.

everyone was loving the royals last year and they did very well but if the BP of the Astros (a TTO Team!) had not imploded they would have been out in the first round.

Being a TTO Team is not the only road to success but we shouldn’t base conclusions on who wins a 5 game series.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 9 days ago

See my post later here with the cubs actual hitting stats from last year. They were a bit above average, not more than that, and even this was misleading because of wildly inflated babips for bryant and soler.

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
Member
Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
3 months 9 days ago

If the team is not interested in it and I just want to win this season, that’s their business, and aim more balls and V, looks like a good way to do it. But the team is capable of, “no”, because we used to oppose the fight with disabilities, including the lack of control and leaving the field where the killer can Break (as opposed to production management of containers without weight errors). Here, evil little bowls, because teams (1) requires a group of people sing lower Bowl, so it turns out, (2) in particular, there are four rotations, and because the rotation of five males and start with those at the top of their rotation, can and (3) management is quickly bored with the appetizers and the best cream that not a lot of people don’t care if you get to the parts, consider how soon will a Wolf and a profit of discharge or moisturizer too. Based team is not good in the playoffs because kr?aga face kr?aga who make very few mistakes, and they are not designed to withstand the production runner who doesn’t make mistakes. A good playoff team is hittingvise impossible even when the container is to make mistakes. Say “this is not defined”, which includes a random assortment of the team and to random else statistically no different from playing during the season, but obviously is not true.

Johan Santa
Member
3 months 9 days ago

That sentence with the evil little bowls has to be the translator’s best performance yet.

forestation
Member
forestation
3 months 11 days ago

Neil Weinberg just published in his article that walks are up for 2016, not down?

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 11 days ago

He didn’t say they are down for 2016 he said the previous 2 years were 2 of the lowest ever, with 2013 also being a top 10 lowest. Just implying this is a different era than the steroid era in which batting lines were inflated.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 11 days ago

How is it possible that sabermetricians regard numbers of strikeouts as an absolutely crucial metric for the effectiveness of a pitchers but of little significance for the effectiveness of hitters (‘they can lead the league in strikeouts and be just fine’)?? This makes no sense.

Krisco
Member
Krisco
3 months 11 days ago

Strikeout rate might be significant. It’s certainly more significant than NUMBERS of strikeouts, to answer your question. If your team goes 0-for-27 in a game with 12 Ks, that’s pretty bad.

But if your team goes 14-for-41 with 12Ks, 6 BBs and 4 HR…well, that’s not so bad, now is it? Same number of strikeouts, but a much different offense that day, I’m sure you’ll agree.

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 11 days ago

Sabermetricians look at k-bb rate not just k’s

jruby
Member
Member
jruby
3 months 11 days ago

It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, though it seems to be.

When you say a pitcher (or team) has a high K-rate, you’re saying that, against average hitting (as it evens out over the year), they get more strikeouts. This is correlated with things like pitch speed and control, which are attributes you want your pitcher (or staff) to have.

When you say a batter (or lineup) has a high K-rate, you’re saying that, against average pitching (as it evens out over the year), they get more strikeouts. But more strikeouts *for batters* are correlated with higher power and hit authority, which are also *positive* traits for batters.

So, essentially, from the pitcher’s perspective, you want to maximize strikeouts full stop. But from the batter’s perspective, you want to *balance* the positives and negatives of swinging for higher power/authority; strikeouts are just one of those negatives that, in reasonable amounts, are more than made up for by approach and the like.

(TL;DR version: Pitching strikeouts correlate strongly with pitching performance. Batting strikeouts correlate far less strongly with batting performance because they tend to be balanced out with more power.)

jruby
Member
Member
jruby
3 months 11 days ago

PS If this ^ is nonsense, please correct me. That’s just my (admittedly) lay-understanding of it.

bglick4
Member
bglick4
3 months 11 days ago

It is a good question – DIPS suggests that every ball in play has an equal chance of being a hit, so by striking out, a player reduces his chance of getting a hit by something like 30%. This isn’t completely true, but let’s assume it is. So, the question then is, does a hitter who strikes out a lot gain more by his approach then he loses in BABIP? We see that many do. He may strikeout a lot because he sees a lot of pitches. Seeing a lot of pitches also results in more walks. A walk puts a batter on base 100% of the time. Even if we ignore the other benefits of taking a lot of pitches, the walks alone could even it out. Player A strikes out 12 times, but also walks 13 times. He has reached base 13 times. Player B strikes out 4 times, puts 21 in play, resulting in 7 hits. Wouldn’t you rather have player A?

A good pitcher loses very little by getting a strikeout. He is generally no more likely to walk a batter because he is trying to strikes him out, he simply is reducing the number of balls in play which means he is reducing the risk of a hit by 30%. So, by DIPs, pitching Ks are good Hitting Ks aren’t necessarily bad.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 11 days ago

If you’ve gotten to this stage of your life and don’t see how that makes no sense, you’re not going to be able to understand it no matter what i write so i’ll leave it at that

bglick4
Member
bglick4
3 months 10 days ago

Perhaps your problem is one of an inability to construct and deconstruct proper arguments. I’ll try again, probably futilely.

We agree that strikeouts are a the worst result for hitters in most situations.
I suspect we would also agree that losing money is bad.

Say I have an investment scheme that loses me 10K. We would agree this is a bad result. It would be better if we didn’t lose money.
But, say this investment scheme also makes me 20K. I just cleared 10K. You would agree this is a good scheme, right?
If I could make 20K without losing money it would be better, but am I in the same boat as you when you blow 10K on lottery tickets? You seem to believe so.

In my case, losing 10K is a negative result from a scheme that gives me a net benefit. In your case, you lost money because you’re an idiot. For some, the strikeout is simply a negative result to an approach that gives them a net benefit. Other people strikeout because they just aren’t very good a hitting.
They guy who only loses 5K to make 10K is better than me, just as a player who hits for power and has a high OBP with few K’s is better than the same player with lots of Ks, but this isn’t the argument.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

The only thing which is clearly suggested by a approach which produces a lot of Ks is one where the batters is swinging without regard to where the ball is pitched or whether he can hit it or not. Not clear how this is supposed to predictably produce a positive result. Any bad result in baseball or for that matter in life can be attributed to some approach which can be expected to generally produce good results, if one feels inclined to give it such an interpretation and one is imaginative enough in positing why this approach should generally produce positive results. By that logic, there are no bad results, just bad interpretations.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

First of all, you have no data to back up these claims. Second, as long as we’re talking anecdotally, a pitcher who goes for strikeouts would be likely to throw more pitches over the plate with a 2-strike count rather than nibbling at the edges, and this will result in a higher BABIP.

bglick4
Member
bglick4
3 months 10 days ago

Not sure if you’re trolling – probably – but the data backs up what I said, in general.

Though, to save you some time, the easiest way to see the ignorance of your belief that “a pitcher who goes for strikeouts (will) throw more pitches” is to look at the leaders in innings pitched and the leaders in strikeouts. You will notice the lists are all but identical. If a pitcher can induce weak contact earlier on in the count, he would throw fewer pitches than a big K guy. I’m thinking of Greg Maddux and his crazy 80 pitch complete games (though even he struck out 6 per 9); however few pitchers are able to do this consistently.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

Just figured out (duh) that you’re a Cubs fans who’s convinced that this is the year and somehow see massive numbers of batter Ks as part of God’s plan for the Cubs to finally win the World Series. No point in arguing.

Spartacus
Member
Spartacus
3 months 9 days ago

@GiantsFanJohn, If you’ve paid any attention to any of bglick’s comments in the past, you’d know he’s an Orioles fan who’s has taken shots at the Cubs.

Are you auditioning to be the Cubs’ version on Damaso? Half the comments here are you.

K-Man
Member
K-Man
3 months 10 days ago
WARrior
Member
Member
WARrior
3 months 10 days ago

Yes, the article points out that high K hitters tend to swing harder, so get more XBH. Another factor, not mentioned, is that high K hitters may tend to be more selective. If you want to avoid striking out, you swing at anything you think you can contact, but the resulting contact may be relatively weak, and lead to a relatively low BABIP. Conversely, if you want to maximize the chances of good contact, you may take pitches that are strikes, because you feel you can’t get good wood on them. Selective batters are therefore more likely to go deep into counts. On average, they tend to strike out more but also walk more and hit the ball harder when they do make contact.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

One obvious problem with the article is that the writer argues that the additional value of a strikeout over something else for a hitter in terms of run value is overrated. Fine, but how does this not apply equally to pitchers? A second obvious problem is that his sample of batters includes only those with at least 500 PAs in their careers while his sample of pitchers includes only those with at last 150 IP in a particular season. This is a pretty bizarre way to limit the data bases, it is not parallel at all between batters and pitchers, only one set of correlations is reported for each (wOBA for batters, ERA for pitchers), and the only explanation given for this is that ‘Players who have high strike out rates with no power to off set their inability to make contact will not ‘survive’ in the majors as often to reach 500 PA’–that is, he has eliminated a certain set of batters specifically because their data will not show the trend which he is trying to demonstrate. Anyone who can be convinced by arguments like these needs to take courses in statistical analysis and critical thinking.

Psy Jung
Member
Psy Jung
3 months 10 days ago

The answer is pretty simple, really: pitchers face, on the whole, a kind of aggregate, average batter – the likely outcomes of different events are roughly similar for all pitchers, and in this context strikeouts are the least damaging event. For individual batters however, the outcomes of different events vary from the average outcome – a fly ball by Giancarlo Stanton is way better in terms of expected outcome than a fly ball by, say, Dayan Viciedo, and so the negative weight of a strikeout relative to the overall range of outcomes for Stanton is lesser.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

These explanations make no sense. You are saying that even if a batter is striking out a low, you can find a ‘good’ side to it because it IMPLIES that he’ll do other good things, and then you find some other good things, but you don’t do the same with pitchers. Okay, let’s play the same game. Most obviously, a pitcher who strikes out a lot of batter by implication will throw more pitches (take 3 pitches to strike a batter out but only one to get him to fly out or ground out) and therefore get tired more easily. He’ll get fewer double plays. He’ll give up more hard-hit balls because he’s throwing more pitches in the strike zone–a high-K pitcher will respond to a 2-strike situation by thinking wow, I can get a strikeout, lets put this in the strike zone, a contact management pitcher will think wow, now I can nibble and nibble and get him to him my pitch, who’s going to get popped more? You can play this play all day if you think about implications of statistics instead of the statistics themselves.

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 10 days ago

Well a contact pitcher usually has worse raw stuff, just as a contact hitter generally has less power. Obvious exceptions to both(beltre,pujols,Rizzo for hitters), (yordanna Ventura, stroman trying to pitch to contact this year) but generally it’s nibblers and speedsters. Again this is why we look at other things (gb/fb rate, .babip, z contact%)

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

Again, you are saying that it’s good to strike out a lot because that implies you can do other things well (like saying if you shoot off your mouth a lot, it implies that you know what you’re talking about), whereas for pitchers you are not considering that striking out a lot of batters may imply bad things. These discussions are better if people stick to actual data.

victorvran
Member
victorvran
3 months 10 days ago

A batter who strikes out a lot and doesn’t provide some additional positive (usually power) will never make it to or survive in MLB. This is why it is implied that high strike out major league players usually do “some other good things”

This is not the case for pitchers. There are pitchers who can survive with low strike out totals by inducing weak contact.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

It’s the same. Inducing weak contact is an example of ‘doing other good things’ for pitchers.

victorvran
Member
victorvran
3 months 9 days ago

I consider a pitcher who works to induce weak contact as a different approach. Similar to a contact hitter vs. a power hitter.

The reason that we aren’t saying that pitchers who strike out a lot of batters are bad, is because if it was bad, those pitchers wouldn’t be major league caliber players.

I’m not sure how you don’t get that in order for these players to be successful and stay in the major leagues, they have to be meeting some certain level of talent (in most cases, there are people who get pt that never should, but for the most part that’s not the case).

There are different general categories that players find success in. High strike out hitters tend to have other power. The slugging (and likely higher babip – I’d have to check if this is actually the case) offsets the number of times the ball is not put in play vs. someone who puts it in play more, but with less authority.

There are only a few players that are really good at slugging and not striking out. They are normally the star players because that’s hard to do…

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 4 days ago

So by that logic, a pitcher with few strikeouts can only survive on the majors by being at inducing weak contact, therefore not striking out a lot of batters is okay because it means you must be good at inducing weak contact. Okay now, you have to try to think about how to make the cubs look great, so you have to try to figure out some way to claim that these two identical arguments are actually different.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

And a ball-in-play hit against Dallas Keuchel is way better in terms of expected outcome than a ball-in-play hit against, say, Joe Kelly.

bglick4
Member
bglick4
3 months 10 days ago

Nobody is arguing against this. You seem to think that a ball in play against Dallas Keuchel is better than a Keuchel strikeout. This is (usually) wrong. A good pitcher has some control over the likelihood of a ball in play becoming a hit, but he can only reduce this likelihood to zero by striking the batter out.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

Who said I think it’s better than a strikeout? And by the same reasoning as in your last sentence, a good batter has some control over a ball in play becoming a hit, but he can only reduce the likelihood of getting a hit to zero by striking out. Exactly the same.

Green Mountain Boy
Member
Green Mountain Boy
3 months 11 days ago

For as long as there has been baseball, good pitching a) doesn’t walk many hitters and b) doesn’t miss with as many pitches, therefore turning high-K/high-BB/high-HR teams into simple high-K teams. Aside from Rizzo, this is essentially what the Cubs are. Built for success during the season, doomed to failure in the post-season.

See: Red Sox (1970-1979)

swingofthings
Member
swingofthings
3 months 10 days ago

It’s the same game in the playoffs. Disciplined hitters can still force walks from good pitchers. Good pitchers allow fewer hits, too. Does that mean that teams who get a lot of hits just become useless against good pitching? No.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

It isn’t the same game in the playoffs. Pitchers in the playoffs make much fewer mistakes and BBs and HRs are much more dependent on mistakes than are singles. The entire idea of FIP is to measure good pitching without considering balls in play, remember that? So in the playoffs the pitchers will be significantly better (that is, their FIPs of the pitchers will be much better), so they won’t walk many hitters or give up many HRs, and this will neutralize the hitting of teams based on BBs and HRs, so that they will be forced to rely on something else to score runs. The difference between good pitchers and not-good pitchers is much bigger in terms of BBs and HRs than it is in terms of hits–that the whole idea of evaluating pitchers on the basis of BBs and HRs rather than hits. Teams like the Cubs, or the As in the days they made the playoffs, who rely on BBs and HRs, are stymied when they actually face consistently good pitchers because they have no reliable way to score runs when the other team’s pitchers aren’t making mistakes.

Green Mountain Boy
Member
Green Mountain Boy
3 months 10 days ago

Remember what I (and johnforthegiants) wrote here when the 108th season without a World Series victory ends in October.

victorvran
Member
victorvran
3 months 10 days ago

There are 30 teams. Picking 1 to not win isn’t some awesome feat…

Krisco
Member
Krisco
3 months 10 days ago

Really going out on a limb there, aren’t you? As of today, FanGraphs lists the Cubs with the highest probability of winning the 2016 World Series. On paper, they’re the best team in the league. This is not really in dispute, no matter what Cardinals fans believe.

But because it’s baseball, and because winning 3 rounds of playoffs is REALLY hard for even the best team in the league, the Cubs only have a 16.1% chance of a title. The numbers say there’s an 83.9% chance that you’re right—that the Cubs will fall short.

I guess what I’m saying is, taking “the field” in this bet might make the most statistical sense, but it doesn’t mean you have a leg to stand on when arguing against the merits of this Cubs roster.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

The Cubs have great pitching, I’m not arguing about that. I’m talking about seeing what actual results their hitters (or more accurately ‘walkers’) will produce, which is the topic of this article. Last year their hitting was better than average, not brilliant but pretty decent (see the post I made elsewhere here with lots of details, I don’t feel like repeating it). I would guess it’ll be about the same this year (if they lose Schwarber for the season they should be worse, but even if they didn’t I wouldn’t think they’d get better). They gained Zobrist and Heyward but lost Castro, we can expect significant regression of Bryant’s .378 BABIP and Soler’s .361 BABIP, and they lose Denorfia’s .351 BABIP (none of their BABIP’s last year were unpredictably low). Of course if your criteria for how good a team’s offense is that walks are for some unknown reason by far the most important statistic and everything else is secondary, then the Cubs will probably be great, but by any other measure I don’t see much reason to get carried away like this article does (‘Now how is someone supposed to pitch against that?). That’s something we can check at the end of the regular season, okay? But no fair saying that the Cubs are an unstoppable offensive juggernaut just because they lead the majors in walks without doing anything else of any significance.

victorvran
Member
victorvran
3 months 9 days ago

Starlin Castro had an 80 wRC+ last year and denorfia had an 89. Both were considered negative Off players.

They added Zobrist 123 wRC+ and Heyward 121 wRC+, both considered positive players.

Why are you only looking at babip when trying to make a point about how these players wont improve their offense?

And Bryant’s babip may regress some, but he carried a 400ish babip throughout the minors, so I’m not sure why you’re expecting a significant regression in that regard.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 9 days ago

I referred to Castro because he had the second lowest K% on the team last year, this was related to arguing to adding Zobrist and Heyward will significantly improve the K situation. I referred to Denorfia because even if he wasn’t very good, the Cubs still benefited from his BABIP luck. And when you talk about Bryant ‘throughout the minors’, this is 800 PAs, let’s not get carried away. And just check out his BABIP data last year, it isn’t at all the profile of a high BABIP hitter–average LD% (20.7), 15 infield flies, 18 infield hits, looks pretty average (his BABIP is .240 so far this year).

output gap
Member
Member
output gap
3 months 10 days ago

Z-Contact 2015:

Heyward 93.1% #16
Zobrist 92.8% #20

It’s almost as if the management team thought there was a problem and did something to address it.

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 10 days ago

Zobrist, Rizzo, heyward strike out below league average. Fowler and Montero are in the low 20% and the other 3 starters are 24 or younger which bodes well to them improving their k rates as they were all highly rated prospects for a reason. You mentioned Rizzo who k’d 30% of the time his rookie year.

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
Member
Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
3 months 7 days ago

Because while baseball, good pitching (i) does not do a lot of killers, and (b) do not miss these places as much, if high-k / high switch-HB / SB medium-highest for the team. But Rizo Here are the basics. Drawing on the success of the season, not next season.

Watch Red Juice (1970-1979)

K-Man
Member
K-Man
3 months 10 days ago

How much of the ’04 Giants’ 10,9% BB rate was due to Mr Barrold Bonds?

output gap
Member
Member
output gap
3 months 10 days ago
jrl133
Member
jrl133
3 months 10 days ago

just throw strikes

first pitch strikes are the best approach to hitters looking to work the count

the cubs strike out 30-plus percent of the time

last thing any SP needs to do is put these guys on base

swingofthings
Member
swingofthings
3 months 10 days ago

The Cubs don’t strike out 30+% of the time. That would be ridiculous. And the article points out that the Cubs also project to have the highest isolated power in the majors, so maybe just throwing strikes isn’t a great idea – a home run is more damaging than a walk.

dcoy634
Member
dcoy634
3 months 10 days ago

And now a 10 walk game for the Cubs’ offense.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

Let’s not get too carried away with the Cubs’ early results. Out of 70 players in the majors with more than 0.2 WAR so far, only one is on the Cubs (Fowler).

snobder10
Member
snobder10
3 months 10 days ago

Cubs haven’t really faced anyone tough. Garrett Richards has good stuff but against a patient team like this he shouldn’t be viewed as overwhelming and Zack Grienke has obviously settled down a bit since signing a $200 million contract.

victorvran
Member
victorvran
3 months 10 days ago

I don’t understand your point about Richards. Are you saying he is tough for teams that aren’t patient?

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

Seems to me that ‘disciplined’–put prominently in the title of this article– should mean ‘don’t swing at bad pitches’ (low O-swing%–Cubs are 10th in the league so far) or alternatively ‘swing less frequently at bad pitches than good pitches’ (high Z-swing%-O-swing %–Cubs are 8th so far). Or another interpretation of ‘disciplined’ is ‘don’t swing at pitches you can’t hit’ (high Contact%–Cubs are 19th so far). But the Cubs don’t seem to be that great in terms of these statistics even this year, less alone in the historical sense. If you want to say they walk a lot, fine, say they walk a lot. But don’t call this discipline.

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 10 days ago

So guy who says don’t get too carried away with results then quotes team stats 8 games in. The difference from 10th right now to 5th is what 5 swings without looking?

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

I was referring to the following, which was written in the third paragraph of this article, and I quote:

“Which brings us to this year’s Chicago Cubs, who aren’t playing by those rules. They’re off to a ridiculous start, with a 6-1 record and a league-best +29 run differential. Their pitchers have struck out 56 batters and walked just nine. Thus far, they’ve looked every bit the powerhouse folks envisioned in the offseason.”

August slipped this in as anecdotal evidence of the truth of his predictions. Of course it doesn’t mean much at this stage, but he thought he’d slip it in early in the article in a prominent place, evidently to strengthen his point. So under these circumstances it seems reasonable to counter with similarly limited evidence. Or do you only accept limited evidence if it supports what you believe?

davemascera
Member
davemascera
3 months 10 days ago

Hmm… ok well this is my first post here ever, but I’m a bit confused.

Doesn’t having a high k% generally just decrease your woba and thus your expected runs to begin with? Yea, having a high k% might not make your team “underperform” as you said when measured against the differential of runs to expected runs (oddly enough, the article itself didn’t refer to it as “underperforming” but rather tried to sell the concept that strikeouts aren’t bad), but isn’t the point of statistical underperformance figuring out transient factors, or rather how much luck is involved in a certain statistic? What then is the point of nearly arbitrarily measuring k% against what are supposed to be luck-based factors?

What happens when you run woba against k% by themselves?

Despite everything you wrote about how great they are the cubs were league median in team woba. I’d think that the reason why the Cubs had only the 15th best woba in 2015 (even though they had the 3rd best walk rate, the 8th highest BABIP, and the 10th highest iso) is that they had the league-worst strikeout rate.

It seems like their plate discipline is just strange, but you haven’t really convinced me it’s good for run production. Maybe you should change the title from “most disciplined” to “most walkingest”

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

The reasoning (see posts above) is that if people strike out a lot, it must mean that they are swinging hard, and if they are swinging hard, it must mean that they are hitting the ball hard, and if they are hitting the ball hard, then they must be more effective hitters. By this logic, one doesn’t hurt oneself economically by doing a huge amount of cocaine because after all, if you do a lot of cocaine, it must mean that you have a lot of money. You aren’t confused–the entire discourse makes no sense. The Cubs were 15th last year in runs scored (6th in the NL), 19th in SLG (7th in the NL), 15th in wOBA (6th in the NL), 20th in wRC+ (8th in the NL), 12th in HRs (5th in the NL), 29th in BA (14th in the NL), and 16th in LD and 25th in infield hits (but luckily enough 8th in BABIP), but somehow by adding Ben Zobrist and Jason Heyward and losing Starlin Castro they have become a team about which it can be written ‘Now how is someone supposed to pitch against that?’. There is no rational explanation for this. The only explanation I can think of for how people could think this way is that these people are Cubs fans and this is just the traditional blind optimism which Cubs fans traditionally express but cast in sabermetric terms. Walking is seen as absolutely crucial (and a marking of ‘discipline’) because that’s the only statistic which this team is actually good at, and batter strikeouts are seen as irrelevant because the team is terrible at that. The fact that they’ve managed to beat up on second-rate teams in their first 7 games is further confirmation of their invincibility. Don’t look for logic here.

victorvran
Member
victorvran
3 months 10 days ago

What a terrible analogy.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 10 days ago

Sorry. It’s hard to think of an analogy for something which is that stupid.

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
Member
Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
3 months 9 days ago

The verdict (see above) is that if a person does not mean that if you are with a heavy punch, they need to know to hit the ball, and if you hit the ball, then they need to be more efficient killer. In this logic, don’t hurt yourself in economies with large quantities of cocaine, because after all, a lot of nuts, there’s a lot of money. Not error-iitava argument doesn’t make any sense. Bloom 15 last year in these zones points (six in the NL), 19 in Sigge (7 in the NL), Voba 15 (six in the NL), 20 + events (8 in the NL), 12 h (5 in the NL), 29 in three (14 in the NL) and 16 in LD 25 in court (but enough 8 in BABIP of happiness), but Ben Zobrist and Jason Heivard and Castro took over and became a team can be write and now anyone can have for her? ‘. There is no rational explanation for this. The only explanation I have a lot of people think this is the way these people are my fans, and fans of the Cubs were traditionally only meets the already traditional players sabermetric point. Could be considered absolutely necessary (and to point out the “discipline”), because it is the only indication that this team is really good, and promaljaje pasta is considered inappropriate, because the team is terrible its terror. The fact that they are able to overcome a mediocre team in game 7, one of which is a confirmation of invincibility. He didn’t see the logic here.

Embiggens Papiamentu
Member
3 months 9 days ago

Can someone please ask Carson to do a post on “The BABIP of Happiness”?

Shirtless Bartolo Colon says in Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back to John Elway
Member
Shirtless Bartolo Colon says in Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back to John Elway
3 months 10 days ago

Not everyone gets to play the Brewers and Rockies in there first seven games :O

L. Ron Hoyabembe
Member
L. Ron Hoyabembe
3 months 10 days ago

No one is saying that if you strike out a lot, you also hit for power. What they are saying is if you strike out a lot, and you also hit for power, then you can make the claim that the strikeouts are part of the process that produces that power. Higher power guys tend to have higher strikeout totals, yet they are still valuable because of their power. Only the best hitters have high power and low strikeouts.
It’s the same for pitchers. If you have low strikeout numbers, but you are also managing contact well, then that’s fine. But no one can claim that because your strikeout numbers are low, you must be limiting contact.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 9 days ago

You can claim anything you want. But it’s better if we stick to facts.

Harry Arrieta
Member
Harry Arrieta
3 months 10 days ago

Cubs are top 10 in K-rate so far this year. Last season they were overly passive but this year they are being more aggressive when pitchers come in the zone.

Also, the Cubs offense really took off in the 2nd half and was a top 5 offense.

BMac
Member
BMac
3 months 9 days ago

My main complaint about the article is, talk abut premature! The Cubs have faced the Reds, the Angels, and the Diamondbacks. Even though the Cubs have messed up their season stats, I think we would all agree that at least the Angels and Reds are headed for a rough season, and the Diamondbacks hardly raked last year either. And, all three of these teams are ranked as tops in walking hitters.

We would not be having this conversation if the Cubs had just faced the Mets, the Dodgers, and the Nationals.

I think we need to let a team go through at least a fair selection of the good pitching teams before we annoint them champions of the Base On Balls.

Imagine declaring a team as historic home run hitters after a road trip through Colorado and Philadelphia…

It’s not just a case of SSS. We are talking about a selective sample that is not really randomly distributed.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 9 days ago

Agree 100%, the interesting question is what is motivating this nonsense. Are these people cubs fans who are unable to think rationally because of their loyalty to their team? Is there really a common belief in the sabermetric community that it’s good to strike out a lot because that means that you’re trying really hard to hit the ball so that you will be rewarded for your sincerity?

Harry Arrieta
Member
Harry Arrieta
3 months 9 days ago

You keep saying strike out a lot but they’re clearly not doing that, thus far. This is a different offense than last season’s, and yes, adding Zobrist and Heyward has been a big part of that. Again I say, last season they were too passive in the zone and they got into way too many pitcher’s counts which led to many whiffs with 2 strikes. Now they are putting the ball in play early in counts. With 4 Ks tonight they will be close to a top 5 team I believe when the stats update tomorrow.

tomadzo
Member
tomadzo
3 months 9 days ago

Agreed. You can’t draw reasonable conclusions until there has been a substantial data set collected. They should review this at the end of April after they have been able to face several more rotations.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 7 days ago

This isn’t how cubs fans think. They think you can draw radical conclusions on the basis of no data at all.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 9 days ago

They also subtracted Castro who had their second lowest K% at 15.7%. But I think that there’s a good chance that you’re right, this year they’ll swing earlier in the count and strike out less, because unlike the writer of this article and many of the people commenting on it, they have some common sense and recognize that 24.5% team Ks is not a good thing. But what you are saying goes completely against the entire point of this article–if they swing earlier in the counts, then obviously they’ll also walk less. The entire assumption of this article is that it’s great that the Cubs are (in the eyes of the writer) being so ‘disciplined’, in other words, not swinging, because that means they’ll walk a lot, and if this results in them striking out a lot too, well they’ll be rewarded for this in some mystical way.

Bryzzobrist
Member
Bryzzobrist
3 months 5 days ago

By my count, tallied solely out of amusement, johnforthegiants has racked up about -210 score for all of his comments combined, including the +5 for assuming johnfortheljhoes is the same poster.

Nicely done, johntheforthegiants.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 4 days ago

Actually two other comments which i didn’t make which questioned whether the cubs were so great got a combined score or -115. The only thing that shows is that cubs fans will boo anything they don’t want to hear.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 5 days ago

It happens when you question the fantasies of Cubs fans who try to make up for the endless failures of their team by having blind faith in any statistic which gives them hope for this year. If you took out the ratings by Cub fans the situation would be completely different.

cornflake5000
Member
cornflake5000
3 months 4 days ago

You have dominated the comments section, but yet you’ve said nothing.

johnforthegiants
Member
johnforthegiants
3 months 4 days ago

I’ve said plenty but cubs fans aren’t interested in anything but being told why their team is finally going to win a world series. Fantasies and excuses, that’s what being a cubs fan is about, and they get the team they deserve. None of them have made a dent in any of the arguments i’ve made. All they can do is say they don’t like them.

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
Member
Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
3 months 2 days ago

You talk a lot, Su Bs fans do not care for anything or told why their team finally won the championship. Imagine an apology as Mets fan and they are those who deserve. None of them have made a dent in the number of arguments that I made. I can only say they do not like.

wpDiscuz