This season is already over.

[Guest]

exactly as goony said. the cubs are not more likely to win 1 run games in the future because they have lost them in the past. when you have a poor bullpen, you tend to lose close games.

 

What you can conclude from the cubs record in one run games so far is that they have done very poorly in those games.

[ctcf]

Haahaaahahahaha

[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.

 

So is hoping for luck.

 

So is ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of the Cubs.

 

Also, it's not as much luck as it is varience.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Chocolate Milk

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

Two teams have had a 10 game or more difference between their Pythagorean record and their real record in a season in the past 6 years. One of those had a 12 game difference, the other had an 11 game difference.

 

Currently, the Cubs are projected to have a 34.1 game difference. That kind of difference simply cannot be sustained-in fact nothing even close can be reasonably sustained.

[Guest]

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.

 

Two teams have had a 10 game or more difference between their Pythagorean record and their real record in a season in the past 6 years. One of those had a 12 game difference, the other had an 11 game difference.

 

Currently, the Cubs are projected to have a 34.1 game difference. That kind of difference simply cannot be sustained-in fact nothing even close can be reasonably sustained.

 

if you want to go down that road you need to start considering the effects has had on runs scored and runs allowed so far - or go to a third order pythagenport record. Also, you probably need to regress player's statistics to the mean to accurately project runs scored over the season and runs allowed over the season.

[jersey cubs fan]

Two teams have had a 10 game or more difference between their Pythagorean record and their real record in a season in the past 6 years. One of those had a 12 game difference, the other had an 11 game difference.

 

Currently, the Cubs are projected to have a 34.1 game difference. That kind of difference simply cannot be sustained-in fact nothing even close can be reasonably sustained.

 

Maybe that should tell you something about how useless pythagorean records are this early in the season. Pyth record means nothing. Actual wins and losses mean something. The Cubs have actually won just 36.8% of their games, and they actually have to play a lot better if they want to be in the race this year.

[imb]

exactly as goony said. the cubs are not more likely to win 1 run games in the future because they have lost them in the past. when you have a poor bullpen, you tend to lose close games.

 

What you can conclude from the cubs record in one run games so far is that they have done very poorly in those games.

 

It's the baseball version of the gambler's fallacy. The Cubs have been unlucky in one run games so far, but a reversal of those fortunes aren't going to turn them into a good team.

[Elrhino]

In this division, in this league, 5 games is nothing. I, too, see lots of promise with our Pythagorean record. I see a lot of promising signs in general.

 

It looks like Hill will live up to his lofty PECOTA projections. Assuming Z is just having his typical horrible April, and by last night's performance that seems to be the case, I'm really liking our pitching staff if Guzman can step up.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what the offense looks like when the sample sizes get bigger and our hitters get closer to their 3 year averages. I somehow highly doubt Soriano is going to keep at a sub .700 OPS.

 

Bullpen is an unmitigated disaster at this point, but again, I'm projecting that eventually some of these guys will get closer to their 3 season averages, and Eyre will eventually do slightly better than a 15.00 ERA for the season.

[jersey cubs fan]

Bullpen is an unmitigated disaster at this point, but again, I'm projecting that eventually some of these guys will get closer to their 3 season averages, and Eyre will do slightly better than a 15.00 ERA.

 

That could work both ways. Right now, they only have 2 guys with more than an inning of work with an ERA over 4.00 out there. They've got 3 guys, Wuertz, Dempster and Cotts, who are actually outperforming a bit.

[CubColtPacer]

Bullpen is an unmitigated disaster at this point, but again, I'm projecting that eventually some of these guys will get closer to their 3 season averages, and Eyre will do slightly better than a 15.00 ERA.

 

That could work both ways. Right now, they only have 2 guys with more than an inning of work with an ERA over 4.00 out there. They've got 3 guys, Wuertz, Dempster and Cotts, who are actually outperforming a bit.

 

Yup-which is why the statistics still have the bullpen in the top half of the league.

[jiml60]

Intrepid Reader: Jim Hendry

 

I haven't read all 11 pages but just wanted to remind everyone of the 2004-5 Astros.

[jersey cubs fan]

I haven't read all 11 pages but just wanted to remind everyone of the 2004-5 Astros.

 

:D

 

never fails

[CubColtPacer]

Two teams have had a 10 game or more difference between their Pythagorean record and their real record in a season in the past 6 years. One of those had a 12 game difference, the other had an 11 game difference.

 

Currently, the Cubs are projected to have a 34.1 game difference. That kind of difference simply cannot be sustained-in fact nothing even close can be reasonably sustained.

 

Maybe that should tell you something about how useless pythagorean records are this early in the season. Pyth record means nothing. Actual wins and losses mean something. The Cubs have actually won just 36.8% of their games, and they actually have to play a lot better if they want to be in the race this year.

 

And what is the biggest reason for that? The Cubs inability to hit in close and late situations. Here are the Cubs regular splits and their splits in those situations:

 

Regular: .264/.322/.402

Close and Late: .198/.286/.237

 

Now someone that has a lesser understanding of statistics would look at this and simply call the Cubs "un-clutch" and forecast no change. However you know as well as I do that the longer the season goes along, the more likely it is that the second batch of numbers becomes closer to the first. In fact, from the way Lou uses his bench, it is likely that the second batch of numbers should be slightly higher than the first (as he uses his bench liberally to get the best matchups). As that happens, the Cubs will win a lot more close games.

 

Now, there's a second big issue-bullpen usage. The team either has to get better performances out of people like Eyre or change how they use their bullpen. Until then, they won't have as good of a record in close games as they will in blowouts. However, it still won't be anywhere near what the team is doing now if the hitting picks up in those "clutch" situations like it is supposed to.

[Chocolate Milk]

To clarify, I think I got pretty far off track, I think the Cubs are playing better than their record. I think that have been the victim of some short term varience. I see their record in one run games as an inidcator of that but admittedly that's not definitive proof. It's so early in the season, that winning a couple close games, where varience plays more of a role, turns the season from "cancel the 2007 season and tear down Wrigley" to "hanging in there."

 

I think that if they continue to outscore their opponents, their record will get better. I don't think they are more likely to win the next close game as a result of their last close game but I also don't think it's likely they continue to have such a bad record in close games. Basically, I don't think the season is over.

[Guest]

To clarify, I think I got pretty far off track, I think the Cubs are playing better than their record. I think that have been the victim of some short term varience. I see their record in one run games as an inidcator of that but admittedly that's not definitive proof. It's so early in the season, that winning a couple close games, where varience plays more of a role, turns the season from "cancel the 2007 season and tear down Wrigley" to "hanging in there."

 

I think that if they continue to outscore their opponents, their record will get better. I don't think they are more likely to win the next close game as a result of their last close game but I also don't think it's likely they continue to have such a bad record in close games. Basically, I don't think the season is over.

 

There we agree. I am very concerned about the bullpen though and SS. And also with an absolutely awful Cliff Floyd continuing to start.

[ctcf]

To clarify, I think I got pretty far off track, I think the Cubs are playing better than their record. I think that have been the victim of some short term varience. I see their record in one run games as an inidcator of that but admittedly that's not definitive proof. It's so early in the season, that winning a couple close games, where varience plays more of a role, turns the season from "cancel the 2007 season and tear down Wrigley" to "hanging in there."

 

I think that if they continue to outscore their opponents, their record will get better. I don't think they are more likely to win the next close game as a result of their last close game but I also don't think it's likely they continue to have such a bad record in close games. Basically, I don't think the season is over.

 

You sir are my new favorite poster.

[Chocolate Milk]

To clarify, I think I got pretty far off track, I think the Cubs are playing better than their record. I think that have been the victim of some short term varience. I see their record in one run games as an inidcator of that but admittedly that's not definitive proof. It's so early in the season, that winning a couple close games, where varience plays more of a role, turns the season from "cancel the 2007 season and tear down Wrigley" to "hanging in there."

 

I think that if they continue to outscore their opponents, their record will get better. I don't think they are more likely to win the next close game as a result of their last close game but I also don't think it's likely they continue to have such a bad record in close games. Basically, I don't think the season is over.

 

You sir are my new favorite poster.

 

Awesome! At least I got something to take away from the time I've wasted today when I should have been working on time sensitive important things!

 

Edit: Also I'm just trying to fill my self appointed role of "Guy who keeps morale high."

Edited April 24, 2007 by Chocolate Milk

[seanimal]

It's the baseball version of the gambler's fallacy. The Cubs have been unlucky in one run games so far, but a reversal of those fortunes aren't going to turn them into a good team.

 

True, but, if the Cubs are a good team, those fortunes will reverse over time.

[bc2k]

2005 astros record on june 7th, 2005: 21-35

 

So you're saying it'll be 99 years and counting.

[bukie]

One line summary of this year's Cubs:

 

They're good enough to win handily when they play well, but not good enough to win when they consistently make silly mistakes.

[cybercub]

War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

 

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!

 

 

 

 

What happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...

 

 

LET'S DO IT!

 

Amen my brother...

[jersey cubs fan]

War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

 

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!

 

 

 

 

What happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...

 

 

LET'S DO IT!

 

Amen my brother...

 

They use this at Mets and Jets games. It always cracks me up because the speech didn't end up inspiring the guys. They just sat there as he ran out.

[ctcf]

*braces for cries of frustration and misery*

[C.C.]

Let me get this straight. The NL Central is terrible and we can't beat anyone in the NL Central? That makes us...

[Soul]

*braces for cries of frustration and misery*

 

Should we be happy?