It's time to test JJ Hardy...

[98navigator]

neither team's history means anything.

 

i was responding to people who seem to be saying "oh they're the brewers, they'll blow it" as if the cubs have some kind of rich history of winning titles.

 

I just re-read the thread, and other than navigator's point replying to you just above, nobody has said that the Brewers will fall just because they are the Brewers. So I'm not really sure who you're responding to.

 

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that either, just making a counter point to the "history" argument. Anyway, we all know that's nonsense on both sides because trackrecord has very little to do with this season (other than the career numbers of the individual players involved).

[Magnetic Curses]

why are people having such a hard time admitting that the brewers are better than the cubs?

 

because they aren't?

 

really? because the standings say otherwise.

 

unfortunately, the division winner is determined by the standings and not a position by position >/= contest. the brewers are going to have to completely collapse or suffer some serious injuries for them not to be in contention all season.

 

are you implying that baseball standings after a month and some change is an accurate rating system?

 

that's not like you, dog.

 

everyone wants to look at RS/RA, which is fine...the cubs should have a better record. but they don't, and those losses are in the past. it may show that the cubs can play up the level of the brewers the rest of the season, but the losses that happened (whether they mathematically should have or not) can't be changed.

 

even if the cubs improve and brewers get worse starting from this date, the cubs are still in a five game hole.

 

a 5 game hole can be erased in 5 months.

[abuck1220]

i didn't say it couldn't.

[Magnetic Curses]

i didn't say it couldn't.

 

all i'm saying is that i'm not ready to concede that milwaukee is better because they've gotten off to a better start than the cubs.

[abuck1220]

according to RS/RA, the cubs should be 18-11 (.621 ball) and the brewers should be 19-12 (.613 ball). however, the cubs are 15-14 and the brewers are 21-10.

 

if the brewers play .613 ball the rest of the way, the will end up with 101 wins. if the cubs play .621 ball the rest of the way, they will have 97 wins.

 

so even if the cubs' luck evens out to their expected winning % and the brewers' luck brings them down to their expected winning %, the cubs will still finish behind the brewers (though i certainly wouldn't complain with 97 wins)...assuming i did the math right.

[abuck1220]

i didn't say it couldn't.

 

all i'm saying is that i'm not ready to concede that milwaukee is better because they've gotten off to a better start than the cubs.

 

i agree. but the fact that they've gotten off to a better start makes it harder for the cubs to catch them...even if the cubs' luck improves and the brewers' luck declines.

[Magnetic Curses]

i didn't say it couldn't.

 

all i'm saying is that i'm not ready to concede that milwaukee is better because they've gotten off to a better start than the cubs.

 

i agree. but the fact that they've gotten off to a better start makes it harder for the cubs to catch them...even if the cubs' luck improves and the brewers' luck declines.

 

there's no denying that.

[98navigator]

This is an interesting podcast of WGN radio's Dave Kaplan and BP's Joe Sheenan from yesterday. Sheenan covers his expectations of the Cubs, Zambrano, and Barrett among other things.

 

podcast

[Magnetic Curses]

This is an interesting podcast of WGN radio's Dave Kaplan and BP's Joe Sheenan from yesterday. Sheenan covers his expectations of the Cubs, Zambrano, and Barrett among other things.

 

podcast

 

i heard the interview with denny mcclain. he's lived a very interesting life. he's got a great radio voice, though.