Where are our division rivals vulnerable?
Against their staff
Their pitchers’ run value per 100 pitches (expected, from batted-ball quality), shrunk for noise. Bars on one fixed scale (±1 run) with a band of ±1.5 SD; solid bars clear the noise.
The Cubs’ staff: −0.24 runs per 100 pitches against the league, 23rd of 30 (one of the weaker staffs). Staff quality carries over: year-ahead r = 0.71 and 0.59. 64% of these pitches were thrown by pitchers likely leaving (10% already elsewhere, 27% pending free agents, 27% on options we expect declined), so most of it describes a staff that may not be there in 2027. Options are decided about Nov 1–5. Returning arms only: −0.08, 22nd of 30, within the noise (their 36% of the pitches, ranked against every club’s returning arms; arms added since aren’t in it).
No pitch stands out against their own average once the noise is taken out. Within a staff, which pitch is soft barely carries over to the next season across all pitches (r = 0.17 and 0.08); clear sit-on flags held 6 of 7 times the next season, lay-off flags 6 of 7, small samples. Read these as a 2026 scouting note, not a 2027 plan. Right column: share thrown by pitchers likely leaving (already elsewhere, pending free agents, and options we expect declined); faded rows are over half.
Against their lineup
Their hitters’ run value per 100 pitches against the league (expected, from batted-ball quality), shrunk for noise
The Cubs’ lineup: +0.12 runs per 100 pitches, 3rd of 30 (one of the better lineups, within the noise). Lineup quality carries over less than a staff’s (year-ahead r = 0.68 and 0.46). 37% of the pitches they saw went to hitters likely leaving (3% already elsewhere, 28% pending free agents, 6% on options we expect declined). Returning hitters only: +0.10, 7th of 30, within the noise (their 63% of the pitches, ranked against every club’s returning hitters; hitters added since aren’t in it).
No pitch type stands out within their lineup. A lineup’s pitch-type pattern is about 33% signal within a season and doesn’t repeat (year-ahead r = 0.20 and 0.01), so attack them with our best pitches, not with a split. Hitter-by-hitter edges for our bullpen are in the Matchup Engine.
Tendencies
- First-pitch swing rate (hitters)
- 28.9% vs 32.2% MLB
- First-pitch decisions (hitters)
- 0.00 decision value/100 first pitches · +0.1 runs over the season
- First-pitch zone rate (pitchers)
- 52.1% vs 52.0% MLB
- Lineup vs LHP
- +0.02 runs/100 · 8th of 30 (1st = toughest for us) · within the noise
- Lineup vs RHP
- +0.14 runs/100 · 3rd of 30 (1st = toughest for us)
- ABS challenge success
- 58.9% (+2.2 runs)
Their hitters take first pitches (−3.3 points). Steal strike one in the zone. Their pitchers throw strike one about as often as the league. No handedness edge beyond the noise: start whoever is next.
Who they’ll have · who’s leaving
- Pete Crow-Armstrong 6.7 · CF
- Alex Bregman 3.5 · 3B
- Nico Hoerner 2.9 · 2B
- Dansby Swanson 2.4 · SS
- Michael Busch 2.2 · 1B
Today’s 40-man without its pending free agents.
- Seiya Suzuki 2.6 WAR ’27 · 4.6 in ’26 · 4 yr × $31.3M · surplus −$61.6M · QO likely · fits us +2.5 W
- Ian Happ 1.9 WAR ’27 · 2.6 in ’26 · 3 yr × $19.0M · surplus −$20.8M · fits us +1.4 W
- David Peterson 1.9 WAR ’27 · 1.7 in ’26 · 2 yr × $12.7M · surplus $7.1M · fits us +1.0 W
- Kevin Gausman 1.8 WAR ’27 · 3.1 in ’26 · 2 yr × $16.6M · surplus −$4.3M · fits us +1.0 W
- Carson Kelly 1.7 WAR ’27 · 1.6 in ’26 · 2 yr × $14.5M · surplus −$2.2M · mutual option expected declined · fits us +0.8 W
- Shota Imanaga 1.3 WAR ’27 · 1.8 in ’26 · 2 yr × $9.7M · surplus $519K · fits us +0.6 W
- Matthew Boyd 1.3 WAR ’27 · 1.6 in ’26 · 2 yr × $9.9M · surplus −$303K · mutual option expected declined · fits us +0.7 W
- Tyrone Taylor 0.8 WAR ’27 · 1.5 in ’26 · 1 yr × $7.0M · surplus $370K · fits us +0.3 W
Also pending, under 1 WAR (1.3 projected in all): Aaron Civale 0.7, Colin Rea 0.4 (club option), Jacob Webb 0.2 (club option), Hunter Harvey 0.2 (mutual option), Caleb Thielbar 0.1 (mutual option), Tyler Austin —, Austin Wynns 0.0, Michael Conforto −0.1, Trent Thornton −0.2.
Not counted as leaving: Javier Assad (club option): under six years of service, so a declined option would leave him under the Cubs’ control through arbitration.
Prices and surplus from the FA Board’s model; “fits us” is his wins added to the Winter Plan’s roster on the FA Board, and “Pittsburgh target” marks a player on one of its shopping lists. Includes option holders we expect to be declined (decided about Nov 1–5). Signing one of them helps Pittsburgh twice, unevenly: each of his wins is worth about 4.0 playoff points here, and each win the Cubs lose adds about 0.4 more, 0.11 of a Pittsburgh win.