Chicago Cobs Catchers

[jjgman21]

as for it not making up for an average under .100, I agree for the most part, but chances are Barrett doesn't block all those sliders in the dirt by Wuertz, or Wuertz doesn't have the confidence in Barrett to block them and leaves them up, in which case, today's game doesn't end 7-6.

I watched Wuertz pitch to Barrett pretty often and Mike didn't seem to have any problem with throwing those same sliders to Barrett.

 

are you denying that the superior defensive skills of Soto weren't helpful today and there would not have been a different result if Barrett was catching? I merely meant to speculate that the result may not have been the same today if not for outstanding defense by Soto.

 

why are you parsing hairs with this point via some notion of observation that could not possibly go to Michael Wuertz's state of mind? might just be me, but if Wuertz had equal confidence to throw the slider in the dirt with any catcher with the bases loaded and a one run lead, he should be examined by mental health professionals.

 

I was probably the biggest Michael Barrett fan on here and I certainly agree with defense over offense. it doesn't prevent me from seeing his shortcomings and how those flaws became worse this year and how his offense didn't make up for it. I wish he and his offensive ability was still here, but that doesn't change the fact that there are times when his poor D killed the Cubs, including a few games early in the year that were attributed to the pen, but blame was equally on Barrett's inability to block balls in the dirt. that didn't happen today, and that makes me happy.

[Laura]

Wow, that sounds so similar to Carrie Muskat's take on the Cubs game.

 

You can include rookie catcher Geovany Soto in that group. On Sunday, he made his second start. Houston had the bases loaded and two out in the seventh and Soto blocked two pitches in the dirt by Wuertz during Chris Burke's at-bat. Wuertz got Burke swinging at strike three.

 

"I've thrown to him a lot, even in Triple-A," Wuertz said of Soto. "He even said to me, 'Trust me.' I said, 'I have all the trust in the world in you.' He's great back there -- all of our catchers are great blocking balls. It's fun knowing you can bury a slider and he'll be able to catch it."

 

It's little things like that which are helping the Cubs.

[Guest]

as for it not making up for an average under .100, I agree for the most part, but chances are Barrett doesn't block all those sliders in the dirt by Wuertz, or Wuertz doesn't have the confidence in Barrett to block them and leaves them up, in which case, today's game doesn't end 7-6.

I watched Wuertz pitch to Barrett pretty often and Mike didn't seem to have any problem with throwing those same sliders to Barrett.

 

are you denying that the superior defensive skills of Soto weren't helpful today and there would not have been a different result if Barrett was catching? I merely meant to speculate that the result may not have been the same today if not for outstanding defense by Soto.

 

why are you parsing hairs with this point via some notion of observation that could not possibly go to Michael Wuertz's state of mind? might just be me, but if Wuertz had equal confidence to throw the slider in the dirt with any catcher with the bases loaded and a one run lead, he should be examined by mental health professionals.

 

I was probably the biggest Michael Barrett fan on here and I certainly agree with defense over offense. it doesn't prevent me from seeing his shortcomings and how those flaws became worse this year and how his offense didn't make up for it. I wish he and his offensive ability was still here, but that doesn't change the fact that there are times when his poor D killed the Cubs, including a few games early in the year that were attributed to the pen, but blame was equally on Barrett's inability to block balls in the dirt. that didn't happen today, and that makes me happy.

Oh, please. You are the one who first delved into Wuertz' mental state when throwing to various catchers to try to make your point. I merely pointed out that he's thrown to Barrett in many similar situations with fine results. I'm not trying to say what is or isn't on his mind. You are.

[CubColtPacer]

as for it not making up for an average under .100, I agree for the most part, but chances are Barrett doesn't block all those sliders in the dirt by Wuertz, or Wuertz doesn't have the confidence in Barrett to block them and leaves them up, in which case, today's game doesn't end 7-6.

I watched Wuertz pitch to Barrett pretty often and Mike didn't seem to have any problem with throwing those same sliders to Barrett.

 

are you denying that the superior defensive skills of Soto weren't helpful today and there would not have been a different result if Barrett was catching? I merely meant to speculate that the result may not have been the same today if not for outstanding defense by Soto.

 

why are you parsing hairs with this point via some notion of observation that could not possibly go to Michael Wuertz's state of mind? might just be me, but if Wuertz had equal confidence to throw the slider in the dirt with any catcher with the bases loaded and a one run lead, he should be examined by mental health professionals.

 

I was probably the biggest Michael Barrett fan on here and I certainly agree with defense over offense. it doesn't prevent me from seeing his shortcomings and how those flaws became worse this year and how his offense didn't make up for it. I wish he and his offensive ability was still here, but that doesn't change the fact that there are times when his poor D killed the Cubs, including a few games early in the year that were attributed to the pen, but blame was equally on Barrett's inability to block balls in the dirt. that didn't happen today, and that makes me happy.

Oh, please. You are the one who first delved into Wuertz' mental state when throwing to various catchers to try to make your point. I merely pointed out that he's thrown to Barrett in many similar situations with fine results. I'm not trying to say what is or isn't on his mind. You are.

 

Just throwing something in to the discussion, because I really have no idea how I stand on Wuertz's mental state here:

 

"I've thrown to him a lot, even in Triple-A," Wuertz said of Soto. "He even said to me, 'Trust me.' I said, 'I have all the trust in the world in you.' He's great back there -- all of our catchers are great blocking balls. It's fun knowing you can bury a slider and he'll be able to catch it."

[abuck1220]

yeah, because wuertz sucked when barrett was catching him. 112 era+ in '05 and a 174 era+ in '06. thank goodness soto's here to turn that trainwreck around.

[Laura]

Just throwing something in to the discussion, because I really have no idea how I stand on Wuertz's mental state here:

 

"I've thrown to him a lot, even in Triple-A," Wuertz said of Soto. "He even said to me, 'Trust me.' I said, 'I have all the trust in the world in you.' He's great back there -- all of our catchers are great blocking balls. It's fun knowing you can bury a slider and he'll be able to catch it."

 

'don't fight the man who buys his ink by the barrel' springs to mind.

[jjgman21]

Oh, please. You are the one who first delved into Wuertz' mental state when throwing to various catchers to try to make your point. I merely pointed out that he's thrown to Barrett in many similar situations with fine results. I'm not trying to say what is or isn't on his mind. You are.

 

no, you didn't. it's quite clear you were not speaking to results, you were speaking to Wuertz's alleged willingness to throw sliders when Barrett was the catcher.

 

and if you take a very small yet extremely logical leap from the reporting to what I said, I was spot on.

[Sarcastic]

Oh, please. You are the one who first delved into Wuertz' mental state when throwing to various catchers to try to make your point. I merely pointed out that he's thrown to Barrett in many similar situations with fine results. I'm not trying to say what is or isn't on his mind. You are.

 

no, you didn't. it's quite clear you were not speaking to results, you were speaking to Wuertz's alleged willingness to throw sliders when Barrett was the catcher.

 

and if you take a very small yet extremely logical leap from the reporting to what I said, I was spot on.

 

And we all know that everything Muskat writes is true. What great baseball knowledge she has.

 

I don't care how much confidence Weurtz has. What matters is the results, and the results show that Weurtz was just fine pitching to Barrett. In fact, as has been repeated ad nauseam on this board, the stats show little to no difference in the performances of the pitchers pitching to Michael Barrett or the backups, this season or for the other three he played for the Cubs.

 

What it really comes down to is whether the slightly higher chance Barrett would have allowed a passed ball, etc., outweighs the significant chance that he would have contributed more offensively. It doesn't.

[Keener98]

Catcher is a defensive position. Obviously, it shouldn't be THAT pathetic offensively, but the fact is our pitching for the most part has been superb since Barrett's departure. Two easy outs at the #8 and #9 hole is definitely a bad thing, but we did manage to score 9 runs off of a guy named Roy Oswalt today, so it's not exactly killing us at the moment.

 

With any luck, Soto can provide at least a little bit of offense out of the catcher spot.

 

I swear if I hear this crap 1 more time, Im going to bang my head repeatedly into a wall. THE CUBS HAVE BEEN WINNING IN SPITE OF THEIR CATCHERS, what part of that is hard to figure out. The Cubs starting pitchers were pitching just fine the entire month of April with Barret catching also, so whats your point

 

Catcher is a defensive position, dude.

 

And so is 1st base 2nd base SS 3rd base CF RF and LF, so what the hell is your point? That phrase is an absolute idiotic phrase, since every position is required to play defense. But in case you didnt know, there is another part of baseball called offense, and I dont care how great you are a calling a game or blocking pitches, its not going to make up for an average under .100

 

this itself is crap. you know exactly what the phrase means. it means that teams are often willing to sacrifice some offense for defense at that position because of the importance of defense at that position.

 

as for it not making up for an average under .100, I agree for the most part, but chances are Barrett doesn't block all those sliders in the dirt by Wuertz, or Wuertz doesn't have the confidence in Barrett to block them and leaves them up, in which case, today's game doesn't end 7-6.

 

I never once said I didnt know what the phrase meant. I said its a idiotic phrase. Also, the same assumptions that you are making about Barret not blocking those balls in the dirt, an assumption can also be made that Barret would have hit a HR or done something else significant offensively, so the Weurtz showdown wouldnt have been needed.

[jjgman21]

Oh, please. You are the one who first delved into Wuertz' mental state when throwing to various catchers to try to make your point. I merely pointed out that he's thrown to Barrett in many similar situations with fine results. I'm not trying to say what is or isn't on his mind. You are.

 

no, you didn't. it's quite clear you were not speaking to results, you were speaking to Wuertz's alleged willingness to throw sliders when Barrett was the catcher.

 

and if you take a very small yet extremely logical leap from the reporting to what I said, I was spot on.

 

And we all know that everything Muskat writes is true. What great baseball knowledge she has.

 

I don't care how much confidence Weurtz has. What matters is the results, and the results show that Weurtz was just fine pitching to Barrett. In fact, as has been repeated ad nauseam on this board, the stats show little to no difference in the performances of the pitchers pitching to Michael Barrett or the backups, this season or for the other three he played for the Cubs.

 

What it really comes down to is whether the slightly higher chance Barrett would have allowed a passed ball, etc., outweighs the significant chance that he would have contributed more offensively. It doesn't.

 

since when does it take any baseball knowledge to write down what someone says and then put that quote into a column? is there really any basis to determine the quote was untrue?

 

this discussion between Tim and I was clipped. earlier in the discussion I admitted that more offense is needed out of the catchers to make their superior defensive abilities worthwhile. but this is the problem when all analytical consideration is given to the aggregate and all the nuances of the game are ignored, scoffed at or at best unaccounted for.*

 

confidence should matter to you because it matters to Michael Wuertz and allows Michael Wuertz to throw his best pitch in any situation, thus increasing the chances that he gets batters out. what's funny about reference to CERA is that when it is brought up by a poster in support of a more defensive catcher, it is called 'insignificant.' but when it all evens out, that is proof that CERA doesn't matter. I choose to believe it doesn't matter, in all discussions, because it doesn't say anything either way due in large part to those nuances of the game. I might be wrong, but it's certainly fairer than changing my mind about its significance depending on the argument.

 

I am not saying that offense out of catcher is insignificant and not a problem right now. what I am saying is defense out of a catcher can be the difference between winning and losing a baseball game and should not be dismissed out of hand like so often is the case.

 

 

* these phenomena were seen in all three games v. Houston and played a significant role in all of them

 

Floyd first to third wasn't a great play, it was a subtle play of possible great significance that may have been the difference in scoring three runs that inning vs. no runs at all. if he doesn't do it, he's at second and probably doesn't get to third on Jones flyball, so DeRo isn't at second when Lamb throws the ball away, he is at first and Lambs throw goes to second (also of note on that play was the rocket shot hit by the batter that lead to the bobble that probably contributed to the bad throw...Geo Soto). not that that is how the inning would have played out, it's just illustrative of how little things often make the difference in the ballgame.

 

Does Oswalt walk Izzy if Soriano isn't on first? who knows, but maybe not, in fact, considering his control and Izzy's lack of baseball skills, probably not.

 

these things are scoffed at as insignificant. they are in terms of evaluating a players future performance. they are not in terms of evaluating how a game was won or lost.

[Sarcastic]

Weurtz: I'm sure the quote was what Weurt said. My point about baseball knowledge was about the conclusion Muskat drew, that Weurtz's confidence really made a difference in the game. We don't know that, and have no evidence to support such a claim besides the conventional wisdom of baseball.

 

CERA: You say that some both describe it as insignificant and use it to show that it doesn't matter when it evens out. I say that these two things are the same argument. It is insignificant because, when yhou have a large sample size, like Barrett's career as a Cub, and remove the variables of different pitchers, opponents, etc., CERA tends to even out, showing that catchers do not have a significant impact on their pitchers beyond their visible fielding abilities, making it the stat (and the notion that good catchers make pitchers better) insignificant.

 

Catcher's defense: You say that Soto's ability to block the slider saved the game. Let's assume that if Barrett was here, he would have let one of those sliders through, allowing a run to score. In reality, the chances that this would happen would only be slightly higher with Barrett catching than with Soto, but for the sake of the exercise, we'll pretend it was a foregone conclusion.

 

According to your logic, that means that Barrett would have been responsible for the loss. In reality, though, Barrett was responsible for a PB. In most circumstances, a runner wouldn't have scored. So some of the credit for the loss has to go to Eyre and Weurtz, who walked a collective 3 batters that inning, creating the situation that allowed Barrett's PB to bring in the tieing run. So those three are responsible for the loss.

 

But wait. If the Cubs had a bigger lead, they wouldn't have needed Barrett to block the ball and Weurtz and Eyre not to give up 3 BBs. So some of the blame rests with Marquis, who gave up 6 ER in 4 IP, for creating a situation in which the Cubs had only a 1 run lead, desite having scored 7 times. On the other hand, if some of the balls that were hit in play were fielded for outs, he wouldn't have given up those runs, so some of the credit goes to all of the fielders. And if the team hadn't made as many outs per hit while batting, they would have scored more runs too, so some of the credit for creating the situation goes to every batter who made an out.

 

The credit doesn't get dispersed completely evenly, of course. But as you can see, there is no such thing as one play or player winning or losing the game on their own. The notion that a defensive catcher would have saved the game is misplaced. You need to look at the overall value contributed by each player towards the game to see where the credit goes, not just to one particular play in a sequence. That is the kind of thinking that leads you down the road of clutchiness and defensive positions.

[Soul]

One thing about Soto though that I'm liking -- and I admit the sample size is small -- is that it looks like his pegs to 2nd are better than any of the other catchers we have sans Blanco.

 

He definitely had one throwout yesterday that was miscalled, and it was a perfect throw. The other could also have been called out because the ball beat the runner -- that throw was only slightly worse, to the 1st base side but up a little.

 

I for one would like to see Cub catchers at least throw out an occasional runner trying to steal. Hopefully those 2 Soto throws weren't just lucky.

[jjgman21]

Weurtz: I'm sure the quote was what Weurt said. My point about baseball knowledge was about the conclusion Muskat drew, that Weurtz's confidence really made a difference in the game. We don't know that, and have no evidence to support such a claim besides the conventional wisdom of baseball..

 

my point was related to Wuertz's words, which renders you contending point moot.

 

CERA: You say that some both describe it as insignificant and use it to show that it doesn't matter when it evens out. I say that these two things are the same argument. It is insignificant because, when yhou have a large sample size, like Barrett's career as a Cub, and remove the variables of different pitchers, opponents, etc., CERA tends to even out, showing that catchers do not have a significant impact on their pitchers beyond their visible fielding abilities, making it the stat (and the notion that good catchers make pitchers better) insignificant.

 

your point is well taken, although I don't completely agree with the notion that sample size will completely parse these things out. sample size does not necessary sort out other variables. I phrased my point incorrectly. my point was that CERA is deemed worthless in the context of criticizing Barrett, then to defend Barrett some of those same posters will suddenly tell you how great Barrett's CERA was with

 

Catcher's defense: You say that Soto's ability to block the slider saved the game. Let's assume that if Barrett was here, he would have let one of those sliders through, allowing a run to score. In reality, the chances that this would happen would only be slightly higher with Barrett catching than with Soto, but for the sake of the exercise, we'll pretend it was a foregone conclusion.

 

simply stating the bold doesn't make it so. before going to the Pads, Barrett had 8 passed balls, the Cubs pitching staff 20 WPs (I don't know how many were attributed to Blanco/Hill). since leaving, the Cubs catchers have combined for zero PB and a grand total of 2 wild pitches.

 

but you also are putting words into my mouth. I never claimed Soto saved the game. I claimed there is a chance that Barrett doesn't stop the pitches that Soto did.

 

According to your logic, that means that Barrett would have been responsible for the loss. In reality, though, Barrett was responsible for a PB. In most circumstances, a runner wouldn't have scored. So some of the credit for the loss has to go to Eyre and Weurtz, who walked a collective 3 batters that inning, creating the situation that allowed Barrett's PB to bring in the tieing run. So those three are responsible for the loss.

 

But wait. If the Cubs had a bigger lead, they wouldn't have needed Barrett to block the ball and Weurtz and Eyre not to give up 3 BBs. So some of the blame rests with Marquis, who gave up 6 ER in 4 IP, for creating a situation in which the Cubs had only a 1 run lead, desite having scored 7 times. On the other hand, if some of the balls that were hit in play were fielded for outs, he wouldn't have given up those runs, so some of the credit goes to all of the fielders. And if the team hadn't made as many outs per hit while batting, they would have scored more runs too, so some of the credit for creating the situation goes to every batter who made an out.

 

The credit doesn't get dispersed completely evenly, of course. But as you can see, there is no such thing as one play or player winning or losing the game on their own. The notion that a defensive catcher would have saved the game is misplaced. You need to look at the overall value contributed by each player towards the game to see where the credit goes, not just to one particular play in a sequence. That is the kind of thinking that leads you down the road of clutchiness and defensive positions

 

that is not my logic. that is your interpretation of my logic based on the aforementioned putting of words into my mouth. I speak of nuances within the game. doesn't that suggest to you that I am not the type of fan who puts sole responsibility or credit on a single player?

 

if there is no such thing as a play winning or losing a game, why are so many so enthralled with those graphs which show chances of winning throughout the course of the game? after the Wuertz K of Burke, the chances of the Cubs winning the ballgame went from the mid 60's to the low 80's.

 

so the remaining question is whether Soto had anything to do with it. by Wuertz's words, one can presume it did because he was willing to bust off his best sliders and the implication that he might not have been so confident in doing so had a poor defensive catcher been behind the plate. by the frequency of which WP/PB occur when Michael Barrett is or is not catching, it did, although I am sure that consideration didn't enter into the calculations that went into plotting the points on that graph.

 

you are right, it does lead down a similar path to clutchiness, and is further evidence of something I have been saying for years. sabr is very valuable, but relied on too heavily, in large part because the assumption of sample size evening things out is far from a truism. Bill James so admitted, why the adherents to the philosophies he was so instrumental in creating and popularizing deny this is troublesome as it has lead to similar dogma (aka 'new conventional wisdom') as it is trying to defeat.

[Sarcastic]

 

your point is well taken, although I don't completely agree with the notion that sample size will completely parse these things out. sample size does not necessary sort out other variables. I phrased my point incorrectly. my point was that CERA is deemed worthless in the context of criticizing Barrett, then to defend Barrett some of those same posters will suddenly tell you how great Barrett's CERA was with

 

But you misunderstand the point they were making. Their point is that Barrett hasn't really made the pitchers worse, as is shown by the fact that his CERA is virtually the same as the back ups'. This is not mutually exclusive with the idea that CERA is worthless. In fact, the reason why Barrett's CERA is pretty much equal to the back ups' over a larger sample size is because CERA is a bogus stat, since catchers' don't have any significant impact on the pitchers they catch. The arguments are again not contradictory, they are one and the same.

 

simply stating the bold doesn't make it so. before going to the Pads, Barrett had 8 passed balls, the Cubs pitching staff 20 WPs (I don't know how many were attributed to Blanco/Hill). since leaving, the Cubs catchers have combined for zero PB and a grand total of 2 wild pitches.

 

Barrett had 8 PB, but many, many innings caught. Looking at the career ratios of PB/innings caught for Barrett and Soto shows that Barrett is only barely more likely to have a PB in any particular inning. It adds up to several more over the course of a season, but what I said is true, Barrett is only slightly more likely to allow a PB in any given inning than Soto.

 

that is not my logic. that is your interpretation of my logic based on the aforementioned putting of words into my mouth. I speak of nuances within the game. doesn't that suggest to you that I am not the type of fan who puts sole responsibility or credit on a single player?

 

if there is no such thing as a play winning or losing a game, why are so many so enthralled with those graphs which show chances of winning throughout the course of the game? after the Wuertz K of Burke, the chances of the Cubs winning the ballgame went from the mid 60's to the low 80's.

 

If you believe that you completely missed my point. The odds may change significantly on one play, but they would not have if all of the other plays up until that point had not occurred. A walkoff grandslam in one game might be a failed rally in another. Do you not see that a game is the sum of the plays that occur in it? No one play can win a game.

 

so the remaining question is whether Soto had anything to do with it. by Wuertz's words, one can presume it did because he was willing to bust off his best sliders and the implication that he might not have been so confident in doing so had a poor defensive catcher been behind the plate. by the frequency of which WP/PB occur when Michael Barrett is or is not catching, it did, although I am sure that consideration didn't enter into the calculations that went into plotting the points on that graph.

 

Did Soto have anything to do with it? Maybe, but whatever the catcher has to do with the pitcher's performance is remarkably small, as has been shown repeatedly. You can pull out all the quotes you want. They mean nothing if you have no evidence to back them up.

[CubmanPi]

Pointless interjection: the use of the word "da" in the title is the only reason I haven't read a single post in this thread.

[Keener98]

Just thought Id let everybody know, Michael Barret is hitting .345(10-29) with 6 RBI's in July.

[kente777]

Just thought Id let everybody know, Michael Barret is hitting .345(10-29) with 6 RBI's in July.

 

I was one of the ones who believed we should have kept Michael. I liked his enthusiasm and his "seeming" committment to the Cubs (example: trying to get Nomar to resign with the Cubs). Personally, I knew he would come around offensively-- but....we don't know all the behind-the scene issues between Michael and the pitching staff. If he wasn't well-liked, it probably wouldn't be a good thing to keep him around the clubhouse.

 

Having said that, I'm not estactic, but I'm OK with Jason Kendall. On all accounts, he is well-liked, calls a great game, and works hard to know all he can about each hitter.

[NCCubFan]

We don't know if he would have come around if he remained with the Cubs, though. Maybe things were so tense he needed a change of scenery. I'm not saying he wouldn't have come around with the Cubs, just that we can't assume he would have. We'll never know one way or the other.

[CubinNY]

This thread is real, real bad.

 

Because it's already hoplessly out of control, I'll submit this for board criticism, maybe the Cubs are winning becuase Dempster isn't closing?

 

Note: I don't really believe this, but it makes as much sense as Barrett and the pitcher's mental states.

[bukie]

Perhaps a large part of why the Cubs are winning more lately has to do with luck. It had to even out at some point, and after starting 2-12 in 1-run games, they are 10-3. Part of that has to do with the bullpen pitching better, part of it has to do with Lou using the pen better, and part of it has to do with some kind of attitude, as silly as it sounds.

 

The only thing that the Cubs could possibly have benefitted from dumping Barrett is that possibly the attitude of the pitching staff is better. Which would be a shame if true.

[CubinNY]

Perhaps a large part of why the Cubs are winning more lately has to do with luck. It had to even out at some point, and after starting 2-12 in 1-run games, they are 10-3. Part of that has to do with the bullpen pitching better, part of it has to do with Lou using the pen better, and part of it has to do with some kind of attitude, as silly as it sounds.

 

The only thing that the Cubs could possibly have benefitted from dumping Barrett is that possibly the attitude of the pitching staff is better. Which would be a shame if true.

I think the reasons the Cubs are winning has a lot to do with playing inferior competition and luck. The bullpen has performed very well too.

[SouthSideRyan]

Perhaps a large part of why the Cubs are winning more lately has to do with luck. It had to even out at some point, and after starting 2-12 in 1-run games, they are 10-3.

 

Gambler's fallacy. Starting 2-12 in 1 run games doesn't mean you're due to go 12-2. It means you're due to go 7-7.

[bukie]

Perhaps a large part of why the Cubs are winning more lately has to do with luck. It had to even out at some point, and after starting 2-12 in 1-run games, they are 10-3.

 

Gambler's fallacy. Starting 2-12 in 1 run games doesn't mean you're due to go 12-2. It means you're due to go 7-7.

 

Law of averages, more so. Flipping a coin 100 times, even if 12 of the first 14 are tails, at the end of that 100 times it's most likely to even out. Sure, that next flip is still 50/50, and any single flip is 50/50, but at some point the greater average trends towards, well, average.

[SouthSideRyan]

Perhaps a large part of why the Cubs are winning more lately has to do with luck. It had to even out at some point, and after starting 2-12 in 1-run games, they are 10-3.

 

Gambler's fallacy. Starting 2-12 in 1 run games doesn't mean you're due to go 12-2. It means you're due to go 7-7.

 

Law of averages, more so. Flipping a coin 100 times, even if 12 of the first 14 are tails, at the end of that 100 times it's most likely to even out. Sure, that next flip is still 50/50, and any single flip is 50/50, but at some point the greater average trends towards, well, average.

 

That's because at a certain point 14 flips is an insignificant amount. Flipping it 1000 times, after 12 out of 14 you wind up expecting tails 50.5% and heads 49.5% total. If any single flip is 50/50, then the total sum of flips is 50/50.

[jjgman21]

Sarcastic,

 

I now have all sorts of support about how catcher's defense on a play or two can make all the difference in the world in the outcome of a ballgame. see today's game thread.