This season is already over.

[ctcf]

Not only is this season over, but I'm pretty sure 2008 is tanked too.

 

I was gonna with the rest of the decade actually.

 

Might wanna just add in 2010-2019 too...

 

hey so are we going to start reusing the decade number's naming thing..

 

like the 1920's are just called the 20's...etc? just curious...this question keeps me awake at night, sometimes.

 

I've been wondering that as well. "The 2020's" just doesn't sound right does it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Not only is this season over, but I'm pretty sure 2008 is tanked too.

 

I was gonna with the rest of the decade actually.

 

Might wanna just add in 2010-2019 too...

 

hey so are we going to start reusing the decade number's naming thing..

 

like the 1920's are just called the 20's...etc? just curious...this question keeps me awake at night, sometimes.

 

I've been wondering that as well. "The 2020's" just doesn't sound right does it.

 

twenties squared?

[Soriano12]

Not only is this season over, but I'm pretty sure 2008 is tanked too.

 

I was gonna with the rest of the decade actually.

 

Might wanna just add in 2010-2019 too...

 

hey so are we going to start reusing the decade number's naming thing..

 

like the 1920's are just called the 20's...etc? just curious...this question keeps me awake at night, sometimes.

 

I've been wondering that as well. "The 2020's" just doesn't sound right does it.

 

phew..glad I'm not the only one wondering about that.

[ctcf]

Not only is this season over, but I'm pretty sure 2008 is tanked too.

 

I was gonna with the rest of the decade actually.

 

Might wanna just add in 2010-2019 too...

 

hey so are we going to start reusing the decade number's naming thing..

 

like the 1920's are just called the 20's...etc? just curious...this question keeps me awake at night, sometimes.

 

I've been wondering that as well. "The 2020's" just doesn't sound right does it.

 

twenties squared?

 

I guess we'll know for sure when VH1 does a decade look back show for these current ones.

[David]

Even if he's safe, it was a bad decision. Process over outcome.

That's the point. And there have been quite a few more examples of dumb play that cost the Cubs this year.

 

Luck probably plays a role, but so does poor decision making and poor execution.

 

I conceded this point before I even argued anything else. What I'm arguing against is your contention that that run cost us the game, when there is absolutely no way you can say that the run would have scored had things gone differently.

 

D-Lee as a runner on base when Aramis hit that HR is your own hypothetical. You're accusing me of (and ridiculing me for) coming up with hypotheticals when the situation you're trying to present is just as much of a hypothetical.

 

Him getting thrown out and then the following pitch being thrown and hit out of the park is what actually happened. Him being on base for that pitch, that's entirely hypothetical.

[jersey cubs fan]

why are people pretending that 2-run losses are determined by luck?

 

Some are arguing that luck is more likely to play a role in a 2 run loss than in a 5 run loss.

 

Some are being completely ridiculous in their overeliance on luck to change things around.

 

The Cubs are 0-5 in 1 run games. That doesn't mean anything. They've lost 1-0. That's not luck. You can't win when you don't score. They lost 6-5 in a game blown by Zambrano and Ohman. That's not luck, that's bad pitching. Just because you lose a 1-run game doesn't mean odds are you'll win your next. There's a theory that 1-run games eventually will even out. They don't of course. They never do. The Cubs aren't losing coin flips, they are losing baseball games. Why? Well, there's a lot of reasons. And if luck has played a part in any, it's about the smallest part.

 

If they want to get to 85 wins, a .525 winning percentage, they must now go 78-65, for a .545 winning percentage. Any perceived lack of luck early isn't going to affect the rest of the 143 games. Is this a .545 winning percentage team? That's an 88 win type of season, and I think that's at the very top of their possibly range this year. It'll take great improvement of play, not luck, to turn this season around.

[UBlink]

Not only is this season over, but I'm pretty sure 2008 is tanked too.

 

I was gonna with the rest of the decade actually.

 

Might wanna just add in 2010-2019 too...

 

hey so are we going to start reusing the decade number's naming thing..

 

like the 1920's are just called the 20's...etc? just curious...this question keeps me awake at night, sometimes.

 

I've been wondering that as well. "The 2020's" just doesn't sound right does it.

 

twenties squared?

 

Since I will be of advanced age when 2020 gets here, I will refer to the 1920's as the "roaring 20's" and the 2020's as the "snoring 20's".

[Chocolate Milk]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

[jersey cubs fan]

Actually, some teams do have better W-L records in one run games than others. What is the correlation?

 

Bill James published an article three years ago in which he reviewed Tom Ruane's article, and added the useful insight that a team's record in one-run games can be projected by the ratio of its runs scored to runs allowed

 

Go figure.

 

The study also went on to note that if you win a lot of 1-run games, it might not be repeatable, but if you lose a lot of 1-run games, your chances of losing more 1-run games continue.

 

Teams whose records are propped up by 1-run wins, struggle to maintain those records. Teams whose records are held back by 1-run losses, don't really make up for it down the road.

[David]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

 

Yes.

[ctcf]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

 

But the season is over!

[Soriano12]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

 

I don't think you can use In closing, in an forum unless you have mod powers to lock the thread..amiryte?

[jersey cubs fan]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

 

The only people talking about their 1-run record are the people who keep blaming their struggle on luck and blindly expecting things to just even out.

 

Pythagorean record doesn't mean things will even out.

[Chocolate Milk]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

 

I don't think you can use In closing, in an forum unless you have mod powers to lock the thread..amiryte?

 

I guess I meant that more as a "closing note from me" as I've wasted enough time with this crap today.

[David]

Small sample size, anyone?

[ctcf]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

 

The only people talking about their 1-run record are the people who keep blaming their struggle on luck and blindly expecting things to just even out.

 

Pythagorean record doesn't mean things will even out.

 

You have proof that it won't?

[CubinNY]

Even if he's safe, it was a bad decision. Process over outcome.

That's the point. And there have been quite a few more examples of dumb play that cost the Cubs this year.

 

Luck probably plays a role, but so does poor decision making and poor execution.

 

I conceded this point before I even argued anything else. What I'm arguing against is your contention that that run cost us the game, when there is absolutely no way you can say that the run would have scored had things gone differently.

 

D-Lee as a runner on base when Aramis hit that HR is your own hypothetical. You're accusing me of (and ridiculing me for) coming up with hypotheticals when the situation you're trying to present is just as much of a hypothetical.

 

Him getting thrown out and then the following pitch being thrown and hit out of the park is what actually happened. Him being on base for that pitch, that's entirely hypothetical.

 

Neither you nor I know what would have happend had Lee been standing on second base. I'm going by what actually happend. Lee got CS. Aramis hits a HR. Maybe things would have been different, maybe they wouldn't.

 

It's not luck or fate that is hurting the Cubs, it is stupid plays and lack of execution. "Bad" teams lose close games, "good" teams win close games. That's how they get the label.

[Chocolate Milk]

"Bad" teams lose close games, "good" teams win close games. That's how they get the label.

 

As an example, the 2003 Detroit Tigers, one of the worst teams of all time, actually won over 50% of their one-run games.

[jersey cubs fan]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

 

The only people talking about their 1-run record are the people who keep blaming their struggle on luck and blindly expecting things to just even out.

 

Pythagorean record doesn't mean things will even out.

 

You have proof that it won't?

 

Proof? No I don't have proof. I'm not saying this season is over though. And I'm not throwing out nonsense about how it's just luck that's hurting this team right now. This team is hurting itself. From the ownership situation, to the organizational philosophy, to a manager and coaching staff that don't appear to have fixed past problems, to players that keep failing at the same stuff, this team is hurting itself. Luck is not hurting them. This isn't a 7-3 team with an 0-9 luck record. This is a 7-12 baseball team that has to play a hell of a lot better if they want to get to the quite mediocre level of an 85-win, we hope that's enough, season.

[CubinNY]

In closing, I think it's funny that most of us are furiously oposed to calling someone a "clutch hitter" because it has no predictive value from year to year.

 

Yet we seem more than willing to beleive that the Cubs record in one run games is a flaw of the team even though it also fluxuaties so much year to year that it also has no predictive value.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Cubs record in one run games is a fluke. Their ratio of runs scored to runs allowed indicates that their record in these games should be much better. Things will even out.

 

The only people talking about their 1-run record are the people who keep blaming their struggle on luck and blindly expecting things to just even out.

 

Pythagorean record doesn't mean things will even out.

 

You have proof that it won't?

Teams underpreform their pythagorean record all the time. The measure is used to determine if teams underperform or overperform based on their RS and RA. It has no basis in reality, it's simply a nominal measure.

[CubinNY]

"Bad" teams lose close games, "good" teams win close games. That's how they get the label.

 

As an example, the 2003 Detroit Tigers, one of the worst teams of all time, actually won over 50% of their one-run games.

In what world is 50% good? When you add that to their other losses it makes for a bad team.

[jersey cubs fan]

"Bad" teams lose close games, "good" teams win close games. That's how they get the label.

 

As an example, the 2003 Detroit Tigers, one of the worst teams of all time, actually won over 50% of their one-run games.

In what world is 50% good? When you add that to their other losses it makes for a bad team.

 

When extremely bad teams do win, it tends to be by very little, ie 1-run games. But the problem with all this talk about 1-run games is that a poor record in 1-run games now does not mean you are likely to even that out later, as the luck brigade would like us to believe.

[Chocolate Milk]

"Bad" teams lose close games, "good" teams win close games. That's how they get the label.

 

As an example, the 2003 Detroit Tigers, one of the worst teams of all time, actually won over 50% of their one-run games.

In what world is 50% good? When you add that to their other losses it makes for a bad team.

 

I was just debunking your anecdotal claim that "Good teams win close games and bad teams don't" because it's not even close to being true.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Chocolate Milk

[Chocolate Milk]

"Bad" teams lose close games, "good" teams win close games. That's how they get the label.

 

As an example, the 2003 Detroit Tigers, one of the worst teams of all time, actually won over 50% of their one-run games.

In what world is 50% good? When you add that to their other losses it makes for a bad team.

 

When extremely bad teams do win, it tends to be by very little, ie 1-run games. But the problem with all this talk about 1-run games is that a poor record in 1-run games now does not mean you are likely to even that out later, as the luck brigade would like us to believe.

 

Childish.

[jersey cubs fan]

"Bad" teams lose close games, "good" teams win close games. That's how they get the label.

 

As an example, the 2003 Detroit Tigers, one of the worst teams of all time, actually won over 50% of their one-run games.

In what world is 50% good? When you add that to their other losses it makes for a bad team.

 

When extremely bad teams do win, it tends to be by very little, ie 1-run games. But the problem with all this talk about 1-run games is that a poor record in 1-run games now does not mean you are likely to even that out later, as the luck brigade would like us to believe.

 

Childish.

 

So is hoping for luck.