McCarthy to Texas for Danks and Masset

[nilodnayr]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck?

[SouthSideRyan]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

Should Joe Gariogiola Jr. get credit?

[C.C.]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

For a team to win the WS everything has to go right. From minimal injuries, to some players having career years. And the Sox had both. So I guess last year is Williams fault for not getting the Sox back in the playoffs right? It's really a silly arguement.

[UK1679666180]

Thanks for the info. To clarify, I didn't mean that knucklers can't be effective pitchers. Obviously there have been a few in baseball. But thats my point exactly. There have been so few. Fernandez and Dickey come to mind as recent failures. I think Haeger is significantly better than both, but the whole start of this was RSF's opinion that Haeger will outproduce McCarthy. Regardless of the ERA's Haeger has posted in the minors, thats an extremely risky bet. For the Sox's sake its good that Haeger has other useful pitches that he throws, it will definitely keep batters on their toes, but no matter how you slice it, his BB rate is going to lead to big problems in the majors. He hasn't been hurt by putting a ton of runners on base yet, but I can't see how that will be sustainable in the majors.

 

He does 3 things well that will help make up for the 4.5 BB/9. He keeps his knuckler down better than most allowing few HRs, like the good knucklers (not like Sparks, Feranadez) he has been difficult to hit, and for some reason he has been difficult to steal off of. Also, many knucklers like Wakefield improve their control as they get older.

 

The reason of there being so few knuckleballers isn't b/c of the effectiveness of the pitch or the difficulty of the pitch. Not many know how to teach it and not many have the desire to learn it & throw it.

Edited December 26, 2006 by UK

[RynoRules]

There's luck involved in baseball, we just don't know how to measure it yet. Until we can, I think we have to give credit to the people who build the winners. I agree that it is intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

[Soul]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck?

 

I never call winning the World Series luck, no matter what. And my argument is, neither should you----or you risk being intellectually dishonest. Because you know damn well if someone else called the Cubs lucky for winning it, you'd be upset. Any arguments to the contrary are just fans being fans.

[fromthestretch]

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series.

 

I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them.

[C.C.]

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series.

 

I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them.

 

I agree. I hope that Cubs luck their way into the playoffs and into a Championship. Hell, I'll even wear a "Cubs are so lucky" t-shirt!

[C.C.]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck?

 

I never call winning the World Series luck, no matter what. And my argument is, neither should you----or you risk being intellectually dishonest. Because you know damn well if someone else called the Cubs lucky for winning it, you'd be upset. Any arguments to the contrary are just fans being fans.

 

Why because you say so? That's a poor arguement...

[Backtobanks]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck?

 

I never call winning the World Series luck, no matter what. And my argument is, neither should you----or you risk being intellectually dishonest. Because you know damn well if someone else called the Cubs lucky for winning it, you'd be upset. Any arguments to the contrary are just fans being fans.

 

Winning the WS is a combination of many things, one of which is luck. Health plays an important role too. The timing of when your team or certain plays get hot is also important. As has been mentioned often on this site, you have to build a good enough team to get to the playoffs and then it's a crapshoot. You have to hope for luck, health, and the right player or two to get hot and carry the team throughout the playoffs.

[Soul]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck?

 

I never call winning the World Series luck, no matter what. And my argument is, neither should you----or you risk being intellectually dishonest. Because you know damn well if someone else called the Cubs lucky for winning it, you'd be upset. Any arguments to the contrary are just fans being fans.

 

Why because you say so? That's a poor arguement...

 

No, because I've seen this board after someone disses the Cubs.

[nilodnayr]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck?

 

I never call winning the World Series luck, no matter what. And my argument is, neither should you----or you risk being intellectually dishonest. Because you know damn well if someone else called the Cubs lucky for winning it, you'd be upset. Any arguments to the contrary are just fans being fans.

 

In order to win a world championship in any sport luck is involved. However, luck in certain degrees. The 72-10 bulls were lucky that they had no major injuries. The 2005 Whitesox were lucky that their rotation performed significantly better year than the exact same rotation in 2006.

 

So far use of "intellectually dishonest" in this thread is completely ridiculous. If you are going to use it correctly you should say "It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that the Whitesox won the 2005 WS on the strength of their rotation, who significantly excceded expectations, as those same pitchers regressed to career norms in the 2006 campaign in which they finished 3rd in the division.

[nilodnayr]

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series.

 

I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them.

 

I will go out on a limb and say that as the current team stands, if the cubs win the world series in 2007 it will be lucky.

[wolf stansson]

I will go out on a limb and say that as the current team stands, if the cubs win the world series in 2007 it will be lucky.

Every World Series winner ever has been lucky.

[Soul]

I seem to remember a certain white flag trade which had everyone scratching their heads, but turned out alright.

 

I also remember a few moves such as the Pod move, Uribe, and Contreras, which everyone also raised an eyebrow over at the time. Yet it yielded a WS champ.

 

Williams knows exactly what he's doing.

 

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing.

 

Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves.

 

Detroit has improved their team this offseason.

 

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck?

 

I never call winning the World Series luck, no matter what. And my argument is, neither should you----or you risk being intellectually dishonest. Because you know damn well if someone else called the Cubs lucky for winning it, you'd be upset. Any arguments to the contrary are just fans being fans.

 

In order to win a world championship in any sport luck is involved. However, luck in certain degrees. The 72-10 bulls were lucky that they had no major injuries. The 2005 Whitesox were lucky that their rotation performed significantly better year than the exact same rotation in 2006.

 

So far use of "intellectually dishonest" in this thread is completely ridiculous. If you are going to use it correctly you should say "It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that the Whitesox won the 2005 WS on the strength of their rotation, who significantly excceded expectations, as those same pitchers regressed to career norms in the 2006 campaign in which they finished 3rd in the division.

 

No luck there at all. Just great coaching, great assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, and great execution.

 

The fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job. And that's all.

 

There is no luck. Only superior performance vs. inferior performance, and all of the pieces of the puzzle at various levels that go into that.

[Soul]

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series.

 

I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them.

 

I will go out on a limb and say that as the current team stands, if the cubs win the world series in 2007 it will be lucky.

 

If they get the performances necessary to win the World Series this year, luck won't have anything to do with it.

 

If there was such a thing as a lucky WS champ, the Cubs would have won one by now (since '08).

[goonys evil twin]

If they get the performances necessary to win the World Series this year, luck won't have anything to do with it.

 

If there was such a thing as a lucky WS champ, the Cubs would have won one by now (since '08).

 

What you don't seem to understand is nobody is saying teams only win with luck. Luck plays a part. Luck plays a part in every baseball game. Seeing eye singles and linedrives that are caught have a lot less to do with execution than luck. Luck, or chance, plays a large part in baseball. You don't win 90 games because of luck, and you don't lose 90 games because of luck. And counting on luck to bounce your way is asinine. But it plays a part.

[nilodnayr]

Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul.

 

So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit.

 

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series.

 

I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them.

 

I will go out on a limb and say that as the current team stands, if the cubs win the world series in 2007 it will be lucky.

 

If they get the performances necessary to win the World Series this year, luck won't have anything to do with it.

 

If there was such a thing as a lucky WS champ, the Cubs would have won one by now (since '08).

 

I think the difference in though here is that I believe if a group of players happen to have career years exceeding expectations and above their norms all at the same time then it is luck. You believe that they went out there and performed well so its not luck.

 

I have repeatedly acknowledged that they performed well (I haven't looked at BABIP and HR/FB rates, but I'm guessing those were lucky), but the fact that they all performed well at the same time and the right times is luck. It is reasonable to assume that some players will play better than expected, some meet expectations, and some underperform, but luck comes into play when you have a significant amount of important players exceed expectations. If you think its good coaching, then what happened in 2006? If you think its the assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, then what happened in 2006 when their team was improved in the offseason? If you think its great execution then why didn't the same players execute just as well in 2006? You state "the fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job." Thats painfully obvious (well painful for sox fans, joyful for us cubs fans). But the question is WHY didn't they do as good of a job in 2006? If you think that no luck was involved in 2005 then you have to believe that those same players were unlucky in 2006.

[Soul]

If they get the performances necessary to win the World Series this year, luck won't have anything to do with it.

 

If there was such a thing as a lucky WS champ, the Cubs would have won one by now (since '08).

 

What you don't seem to understand is nobody is saying teams only win with luck. Luck plays a part. Luck plays a part in every baseball game. Seeing eye singles and linedrives that are caught have a lot less to do with execution than luck. Luck, or chance, plays a large part in baseball. You don't win 90 games because of luck, and you don't lose 90 games because of luck. And counting on luck to bounce your way is asinine. But it plays a part.

 

I do understand this. But statistically there is no way for little momentary quirks to hold up on one side of the ledger, any more than it's possible to flip a coin 100 times and have it register 100 "tails."

 

Therefore it is not an issue when determining who wins the World Series.

 

I think the real issue here is that some people want to tag injuries, or career years, or exceptional above-the-norm performances as "luck." That's completely off-base. Not luck at all. It's just a great year, and all the things that go into it. A team that gets several great years from guys, or plays "over their heads," or whatever-----they aren't lucky. They just did a great job that year.

[Soul]

I think the difference in though here is that I believe if a group of players happen to have career years exceeding expectations and above their norms all at the same time then it is luck. You believe that they went out there and performed well so its not luck.

 

I have repeatedly acknowledged that they performed well (I haven't looked at BABIP and HR/FB rates, but I'm guessing those were lucky), but the fact that they all performed well at the same time and the right times is luck. It is reasonable to assume that some players will play better than expected, some meet expectations, and some underperform, but luck comes into play when you have a significant amount of important players exceed expectations. If you think its good coaching, then what happened in 2006? If you think its the assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, then what happened in 2006 when their team was improved in the offseason? If you think its great execution then why didn't the same players execute just as well in 2006? You state "the fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job." Thats painfully obvious (well painful for sox fans, joyful for us cubs fans). But the question is WHY didn't they do as good of a job in 2006? If you think that no luck was involved in 2005 then you have to believe that those same players were unlucky in 2006.

 

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio.

 

Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story.

 

White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Soul

[goonys evil twin]

If they get the performances necessary to win the World Series this year, luck won't have anything to do with it.

 

If there was such a thing as a lucky WS champ, the Cubs would have won one by now (since '08).

 

What you don't seem to understand is nobody is saying teams only win with luck. Luck plays a part. Luck plays a part in every baseball game. Seeing eye singles and linedrives that are caught have a lot less to do with execution than luck. Luck, or chance, plays a large part in baseball. You don't win 90 games because of luck, and you don't lose 90 games because of luck. And counting on luck to bounce your way is asinine. But it plays a part.

 

I do understand this. But statistically there is no way for little momentary quirks to hold up on one side of the ledger, any more than it's possible to flip a coin 100 times and have it register 100 "tails."

 

Therefore it is not an issue when determining who wins the World Series.

 

I think the real issue here is that some people want to tag injuries, or career years, or exceptional above-the-norm performances as "luck." That's completely off-base. Not luck at all. It's just a great year, and all the things that go into it. A team that gets several great years from guys, or plays "over their heads," or whatever-----they aren't lucky. They just did a great job that year.

 

Okay man, you keep thinking that.

 

100 consecutive tails is not anywhere close to having the balance of luck being on your side over the course of the season.

 

"All the things that go into it" includes luck.

[nilodnayr]

Heres a fun little exercise. Lets compare the 05 and 06 rotation in terms of actual BABIP vs expected BABIP. We find the following

 

In 05 Buehrle's BABIP was .036 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .001 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Contreras' BABIP was .054 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Garland's BABIP was .077 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .009 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Freddy's BABIP was .040 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 lower than expected.

 

In 05 Il Duche's BABIP was .033 lower than expected, while in 06 Javy's was .006 higher than expected.

 

So in summation, the 2005 Whitesox rotation was very lucky. Ohh and those are regular season stats...you don't want to know how lucky they were in the playoffs. Ok just for some more fun they were .072, .097, .106, .134, and .247 lower than expected respectively in the postseason.

[Soul]

If they get the performances necessary to win the World Series this year, luck won't have anything to do with it.

 

If there was such a thing as a lucky WS champ, the Cubs would have won one by now (since '08).

 

What you don't seem to understand is nobody is saying teams only win with luck. Luck plays a part. Luck plays a part in every baseball game. Seeing eye singles and linedrives that are caught have a lot less to do with execution than luck. Luck, or chance, plays a large part in baseball. You don't win 90 games because of luck, and you don't lose 90 games because of luck. And counting on luck to bounce your way is asinine. But it plays a part.

 

I do understand this. But statistically there is no way for little momentary quirks to hold up on one side of the ledger, any more than it's possible to flip a coin 100 times and have it register 100 "tails."

 

Therefore it is not an issue when determining who wins the World Series.

 

I think the real issue here is that some people want to tag injuries, or career years, or exceptional above-the-norm performances as "luck." That's completely off-base. Not luck at all. It's just a great year, and all the things that go into it. A team that gets several great years from guys, or plays "over their heads," or whatever-----they aren't lucky. They just did a great job that year.

 

Okay man, you keep thinking that.

 

100 consecutive tails is not anywhere close to having the balance of luck being on your side over the course of the season.

 

"All the things that go into it" includes luck.

 

You're right, I will keep thinking that. Nothing anyone says will knock me out of the real world, and into the realm of the "prisoners of hope" who wish, if they could only get lucky (like those darn White Sox), they could see a Cubs World series.

[nilodnayr]

I think the difference in though here is that I believe if a group of players happen to have career years exceeding expectations and above their norms all at the same time then it is luck. You believe that they went out there and performed well so its not luck.

 

I have repeatedly acknowledged that they performed well (I haven't looked at BABIP and HR/FB rates, but I'm guessing those were lucky), but the fact that they all performed well at the same time and the right times is luck. It is reasonable to assume that some players will play better than expected, some meet expectations, and some underperform, but luck comes into play when you have a significant amount of important players exceed expectations. If you think its good coaching, then what happened in 2006? If you think its the assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, then what happened in 2006 when their team was improved in the offseason? If you think its great execution then why didn't the same players execute just as well in 2006? You state "the fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job." Thats painfully obvious (well painful for sox fans, joyful for us cubs fans). But the question is WHY didn't they do as good of a job in 2006? If you think that no luck was involved in 2005 then you have to believe that those same players were unlucky in 2006.

 

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio.

 

Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story.

 

White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story.

 

Regardless of the proof I provided above, don't you think the timing of all of those great performances is lucky? If half of their rotation would have had a great year in 05 and the other half in 06, then they wouldn't have made the playoffs in either year. Heck, pythagorean has them missing the playoffs in both years as it is.

[goonys evil twin]

You're right, I will keep thinking that. Nothing anyone says will knock me out of the real world, and into the realm of the "prisoners of hope" who wish, if they could only get lucky (like those darn White Sox), they could see a Cubs World series.

 

What is your reason for lumping those who think luck plays a part, into the group that is begging for luck to bring the Cubs to the World Series? It's a rather absurd line you are drawing in the sand. Luck plays a part, whether you want to admit it or not. It's not the determining factor. You still need the talent and skill and determination to get into a position where good luck will mean anything. And it's not necessarily true that every WS winner has been the recipient of more good luck than anybody else. But luck plays a part. When an 83 win team wins the WS, and virtually the same pitching staff goes from WS heroes to regular season also rans, you know luck is involved somewhere.