Playing to the Level of one's Competition

[Derwood]

So many (including myself) have espoused the theory that the Cubs are constantly playing to the level of their opponents (i.e. playing well/winning against the good teams, phoning it in against the bad). I thought I'd do some actual research (gasp!) to see if it's true. Here are the Cubs opponents in 2006, listed from best to worst in winning pct., with the Cub record vs. that team:

 

NYM (.621) - 3-3
DET (.596) - 0-3
MIN (.586) - 0-3
CHW (.575) - 2-4
LAD (.531) - 3-2 (1 to go)
STL (.531) - 11-8
SDG (.521) - 0-7
PHI (.510) - 1-3 (3 to go)
SFG (.503) - 2-4
FLA (.500) - 2-4
CIN (.497) - 7-5 (7 to go)
HOU (.490) - 7-8
ATL (.476) - 1-6
ARZ (.473) - 2-4
CLE (.472) - 2-1
COL (.469) - 1-2 (3 to go)
MIL (.452) - 6-8
WSH (.432) - 2-4
PIT (.408) - 6-9

 

Depending on what happens in the remaining games, the Cubs could finish the year with a winning record against just one sub-.500 team (CLE) all year. The team got smacked around in general by the AL Central, and the San Diego series was totally awful. STL and NYM are the only teams I'm impressed with the team's record against, but the fact that the Cubs simply can't beat bad teams is infuriating.

[goonys evil twin]

but the fact that the Cubs simply can't beat bad teams is infuriating.

 

Bad teams lose to bad teams.

[Derwood]

but the fact that the Cubs simply can't beat bad teams is infuriating.

 

Bad teams lose to bad teams.

 

True, and the Cubs are very, very bad. But occasionally bad teams beat bad teams. The Cubs are almost 100% below .500 to other bad teams. That's something special

[biittner77]

I don't really see where these numbers are all that conclusive. If you take away the 3 game sweep early in the year against the Cards, the Cubs were at or below .500 to everyone that they've play more than 3 times except the Reds.

 

It's not that the Cubs play well against good teams so much as they occassionally play well enough to beat anybody they play.

[thedaymen]

I don't really see where these numbers are all that conclusive. If you take away the 3 game sweep early in the year against the Cards, the Cubs were at or below .500 to everyone that they've play more than 3 times except the Reds.

 

It's not that the Cubs play well against good teams so much as they occassionally play well enough to beat anybody they play.

 

And here I agree with biittner77 - if you do the math the Cubs' record against teams with .500 or better its 22-37 (including last night's game and not including the Marlins), which is roughly winning 36% of your games. Not too far off their percentage against "bad" teams either.

 

What I think it comes down to is the Cubs have streaky players surrounded by garbage. When ARAM and the French Outfielders are hot, the Cubs are pretty good regardless of who they're playing. When they're not, the opposite is true.

[TruffleShuffle]

Yeah, I bet we could've beaten Kansas City though!!!

[USSoccer]

I have a feeling that if you apply the same test to seasons 2003-2005, you might see more of a correlation.

[Brian]

I have a feeling that if you apply the same test to seasons 2003-2005, you might see more of a correlation.

 

yeah the '04 Cubs were ousted from the playoffs by the Expos, Reds and Mets :(

[Derwood]

I have a feeling that if you apply the same test to seasons 2003-2005, you might see more of a correlation.

 

yeah the '04 Cubs were ousted from the playoffs by the Expos, Reds and Mets :(

 

Let's take a look at 1994:

 

STL (.644) - 8-10
ATL (.578) - 3-3
LAD (.574) - 2-4
LAA (.568) - 2-1
HOU (.564) - 10-9
OAK (.562) - 2-1
SFG (.544) - 2-4
SDG (.534) - 4-2
PHI (.515) - 3-3
CHW (.503) - 4-2
FLA (.503) - 3-3
CIN (.466) - 9-8
NYM (.425) - 4-2
PIT (.419) - 13-5
MIL (.411) - 10-7
COL (.410) - 5-1
MON (.406) - 3-3
ARZ (.313) - 2-4

 

.500 or better against every losing team but Arizona, more than made up for by the total ownership of the Pirates

[CuseCubFan69]

So if the Cubs made the playoffs they'd win the World Series unless they had to play the Padres.

[TruffleShuffle]

So if the Cubs made the playoffs they'd win the World Series unless they had to play the Padres.

 

Not if the Twins, White Sox or Tigers were in the WS.

[CuseCubFan69]

So if the Cubs made the playoffs they'd win the World Series unless they had to play the Padres.

 

Not if the Twins, White Sox or Tigers were in the WS.

 

That's right they didn't play well against them! Go Yankees!

[USSoccer]

I have a feeling that if you apply the same test to seasons 2003-2005, you might see more of a correlation.

 

yeah the '04 Cubs were ousted from the playoffs by the Expos, Reds and Mets :(

 

Let's take a look at 1994:

 

STL (.644) - 8-10
ATL (.578) - 3-3
LAD (.574) - 2-4
LAA (.568) - 2-1
HOU (.564) - 10-9
OAK (.562) - 2-1
SFG (.544) - 2-4
SDG (.534) - 4-2
PHI (.515) - 3-3
CHW (.503) - 4-2
FLA (.503) - 3-3
CIN (.466) - 9-8
NYM (.425) - 4-2
PIT (.419) - 13-5
MIL (.411) - 10-7
COL (.410) - 5-1
MON (.406) - 3-3
ARZ (.313) - 2-4

 

.500 or better against every losing team but Arizona, more than made up for by the total ownership of the Pirates

 

Interesting. That's good work!

[Derwood]

the problem in 2004 was that the Cubs couldn't do much with the good teams