The Cubs Since The "Tirade"

[Jon]

Much has been made of the so-called events of early June by the media. Supposedly it was a big factor in getting this team jump started.

 

Month   BA    OBP   SLG   OPS  R/Game

April  .270  .326  .413  .739  4.667
May    .261  .325  .407  .732  4.407
June   .277  .336  .440  .776  4.750
July   .267  .326  .374  .700  4.846

 

While the Cubs offense did well in June, they had their worst month at the plate in July in terms of BA/OBP/SLG. And yet, they managed to have their best month in terms of scoring. I couldn't find team numbers with RISP by month, but this is the result of luck. They likely had bad luck with RISP the first two months and had much better luck in July despite individually putting up worse numbers.

 

Month  ERA    K/9    BB/9   WHIP    HR/9   RA/Game

April  3.60   7.20   3.31   1.232   1.064   3.792
May    4.54   7.49   3.58   1.344   1.107   4.777
June   3.83   8.06   3.12   1.253   1.146   4.321
July   3.26   6.83   3.85   1.307   0.824   3.346

 

The pitching was plain bad in May, making their improved performance in June look that much better. July was by far the pitching staff's best month, though, well after Lou's tirade.

 

They were unlucky in April and bad in May. They followed that up with a good June and a very lucky July offensively. The pitching in June was worse than it was in April, when Zambrano was really struggling.

 

I just don't see the correlation, let alone any evidence that the tirade actually motivated the team.

[ChiCubsFan]

Look at how much more often the white flag has been hoisted since the tirade to find the correlation you so desperately desire.

[Derwood]

Look at how much more often the white flag has been hoisted since the tirade to find the correlation you so desperately desire.

 

correlation =/= causation

[ChiCubsFan]

Look at how much more often the white flag has been hoisted since the tirade to find the correlation you so desperately desire.

 

correlation =/= causation

 

Did I say it does?

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

Let me say right now I do agree with the "stats people" most of the time.

 

Once again I will take the hits for saying this but the game is 90% mental. We do not have reliable measures for that metric so it tends to be dismissed by some. "If it cant be measured, it dosent exist." Is a commonly read reply on this board. This is one of those occasions where measuring what can be measured isn't enough.

 

Belief in yourself, teammates, rituals, good luck charms, is unmeasurable. However it is a difference in how the game is played. Think to situations in your own life where you believed something was achievable and you had a hand in it being true or not. Odds are it was a success. Think again to a situation where it was reversed. You did not believe in the success of the project. Odds are it didnt work.

 

The great generals of history all write of the overwhelming preponderance of the morale, (mental), to the physical. The belief that victory, success, however it is defined, is waiting on them and them alone. That is the army that will often win. They expect victory and will bear the burden to make it happen.

 

Lou has talked since being hired about developing a "Cubby swagger". Dusty last year talked at one point of just playing for your stats. Which manager is expecting victory? Which manager is telling his players that winning is the only acceptable outcome? People talk about Lou being a "winner", even after being at Tampa Bay. Why? Because he refuses to accept defeat in the long term. Lou expects to play in the post season and come hell or high water he is going to do what he has to do to get there. That is why I believe some players dont mix well with Lou.

 

Look at the guys he runs out there. They play hard, they play solid fundamentals, and rarely give up bad at bats. They may not have the best talent, but they refuse to give in.

 

Losing breeds losing. Once you get used to it it becomes the norm. Working to win is hard. It requires work, both physical and mental, that is tiring. When you are working to win and you have those around you who dont it leads to a stark contrast. It becomes easy to see the differences.

 

Lou's tirade was his statement to the team that losing, and all that goes into that, was no longer an option. The players could have rejected him and this team would have gone into the tank. Instead they responded and began to learn how to win. I see a difference in body language, in how things are done. With each win you see it becoming more ingrained.

 

The stats are a measure of outcome. The winning is a measure of belief that they will win, find a way to win, and continue to win.

 

The next test that worries me is how they will cope with a long term injury to a cornerstone player on the team. We all know what happened after DLee went down last year. Dusty needed to get them together and put the onus on the players for each of them to pick up a little of the slack. Instead he let the players be players and expected someone to do it. In the end no one did it.

[Ender]

I couldn't agree more with the original post. The Cubs had a great June and a very luck July, there is no reason to point to any one event that caused that.

 

I'll also say I strongly disagree with the game being 90% mental, at least 10% of the game is simply luck, variance, whatever you want to call it and at least another 50% is talent. I'll grant you at most 40% is mental.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

I couldn't agree more with the original post. The Cubs had a great June and a very luck July, there is no reason to point to any one event that caused that.

 

I'll also say I strongly disagree with the game being 90% mental, at least 10% of the game is simply luck, variance, whatever you want to call it and at least another 50% is talent. I'll grant you at most 40% is mental.

 

Baseball is a game of failure. Failing seven times out of ten over twenty seasons gets you into the hall of fame. Name another sport where failing seven times out of ten gets you playing time outside of a free throw percentage and hockey.

 

Look at Rich Hill, who has good stuff but isnt mentaly tough enough to compete with it. I go no further that Hill himself who admits to focusing to much on the outcome instead of the process. Lou has started to echo those comments. Look at the Daily Herald quotes after Hills last start.

 

The mental side of the game is there from the time you get to the park till the last pitch. It is a part of every play, every pitch. It is more draining of energy than the game itself.

 

Its something you have to experience, rather than talk about.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I couldn't agree more with the original post. The Cubs had a great June and a very luck July, there is no reason to point to any one event that caused that.

 

I'll also say I strongly disagree with the game being 90% mental, at least 10% of the game is simply luck, variance, whatever you want to call it and at least another 50% is talent. I'll grant you at most 40% is mental.

 

Baseball is a game of failure. Failing seven times out of ten over twenty seasons gets you into the hall of fame. Name another sport where failing seven times out of ten gets you playing time outside of a free throw percentage and hockey.

 

Look at Rich Hill, who has good stuff but isnt mentaly tough enough to compete with it. I go no further that Hill himself who admits to focusing to much on the outcome instead of the process. Lou has started to echo those comments. Look at the Daily Herald quotes after Hills last start.

 

The mental side of the game is there from the time you get to the park till the last pitch. It is a part of every play, every pitch. It is more draining of energy than the game itself.

 

Its something you have to experience, rather than talk about.

 

Hill is not an expert on what makes Hill succeed or fail. Hill is a ballplayer. That means he was blessed with the physical ability to throw a baseball in ways that are hard to hit, and has supplemented that with hard work. His head is full of whatever placebo platitudes his coaches have thought would make him perform better if he believed them, regardless of whether they are true.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

Hill is not an expert on what makes Hill succeed or fail. Hill is a ballplayer. That means he was blessed with the physical ability to throw a baseball in ways that are hard to hit, and has supplemented that with hard work. His head is full of whatever placebo platitudes his coaches have thought would make him perform better if he believed them, regardless of whether they are true.

 

I argue that Hill is the best expert on what makes Hill tick. Or as you say succeed or fail. Hill has said several times that he focuses on what happens after the pitch to what he can do with the pitch. When he has had success by his own admission is when he does like the "Nuke" LaLooshe character in Bull Durham. That is not to think and just pitch. After all its part of the catchers job to do the thinking for the battery.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hill is not an expert on what makes Hill succeed or fail. Hill is a ballplayer. That means he was blessed with the physical ability to throw a baseball in ways that are hard to hit, and has supplemented that with hard work. His head is full of whatever placebo platitudes his coaches have thought would make him perform better if he believed them, regardless of whether they are true.

 

I argue that Hill is the best expert on what makes Hill tick. Or as you say succeed or fail. Hill has said several times that he focuses on what happens after the pitch to what he can do with the pitch. When he has had success by his own admission is when he does like the "Nuke" LaLooshe character in Bull Durham. That is not to think and just pitch. After all its part of the catchers job to do the thinking for the battery.

 

But where is the evidence for that? You can't use Hill's testimony to prove that Hill's testimony is expert, that's circular logic.

 

 

Nuke is a perfect example. Crash filled his head with whatever it took to get him to perform, regardless of whether it was true or not.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

If you dont know yourself best who does?

 

I suggest finding a copy of "The Mental Game of Baseball" by Harvey Dorfman.

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781888698541&itm=1

 

 

This is also a good read. An introductory text if you will.

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9781570280214&pwb=1&z=y

[Backtobanks]

This is a hard argument to take sides on. I do think there are a lot of players where the mental part of the game is a big part, but there are some players that are blessed with so much raw talent that the mental aspect is almost nil. One player that comes to mind is Manny Ramirez. I guess the only point that I can make is that each player is an individual and what part of their game is mental depends on that individual, so you can't say that baseball is 90% mental or 40% mental.

[Sarcastic]

It is reasonable to say that there are significant mental aspects to the game. However, it is clear that whatever mentality it is that puts players in hot and cold streaks can't be controlled by the methods we have now, and many of the things that are believed to trigger them don't seem to have much effect.

[Cubfanintheknow]

Once again I will take the hits for saying this but the game is 90% mental.

 

Don't you know anything? 90% of baseball is half mental! :wink:

[Jon]

Look at how much more often the white flag has been hoisted since the tirade to find the correlation you so desperately desire.

But is that the result of them playing better or a result of luck? Certainly the pitching staff, or 12 of the 25 players on the team, didn't do anything special in June. And heck, even though they did much better at the plate than they did in April, and the runs per game average from those two months are pretty close.

 

The Cubs were probably as fortunate to win like they did in June as they were unfortunate to lose as many as they did early on.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

Once again I will take the hits for saying this but the game is 90% mental.

 

Don't you know anything? 90% of baseball is half mental! :wink:

 

Yogi, is that you???

[Cubfanintheknow]

Once again I will take the hits for saying this but the game is 90% mental.

 

Don't you know anything? 90% of baseball is half mental! :wink:

 

Yogi, is that you???

 

It's not me.

 

But even if it was, it still wouldn't be me.

[Soul]

Look at how much more often the white flag has been hoisted since the tirade to find the correlation you so desperately desire.

But is that the result of them playing better or a result of luck? Certainly the pitching staff, or 12 of the 25 players on the team, didn't do anything special in June. And heck, even though they did much better at the plate than they did in April, and the runs per game average from those two months are pretty close.

 

The Cubs were probably as fortunate to win like they did in June as they were unfortunate to lose as many as they did early on.

 

Could be luck. It's one of those things that is impossible to say one way or the other. Cubs' pythag was predicting we would pull it up long before the tirade, but on the other hand the whole "find a way to lose" vs. "find a way to win" thing. What is that - ? Mentality?

 

I was about to say the Crew are 3-0 since their "tirade", but not quite yet.....they just gave up 5 in the 9th, blew an easy save opp.

[Cubfanintheknow]

I was about to say the Crew are 3-0 since their "tirade", but not quite yet.....they just gave up 5 in the 9th, blew an easy save opp.

 

Mke that 2-1 since the tirade. Obviously Yost's message didn't make it to the bullpen.

[Soul]

I was about to say the Crew are 3-0 since their "tirade", but not quite yet.....they just gave up 5 in the 9th, blew an easy save opp.

 

Mke that 2-1 since the tirade. Obviously Yost's message didn't make it to the bullpen.

 

Yeah, haha. The BP couldn't see the fight in the tunnel! :lol: Next time move it out where everyone can see.

[Ender]

If the game were 90% mental then talent really wouldn't matter at all and gritty guys like Eckstein and Counsell would be league MVP's all the time and headcases like Manny Ramirez wouldn't be on a team.

 

There is a mental aspect to the game for sure, but its nowhere near 90% of the game. Like I said at best I think its 40% and that is being generous. A no talent mentally tough player is not going anywhere, a mentally weak talented player is still probably in the majors, he just isn't as good as he should be.

[abuck1220]

saying the game is 90% mental is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read on this board.

[ChiCubsFan]

Look at how much more often the white flag has been hoisted since the tirade to find the correlation you so desperately desire.

But is that the result of them playing better or a result of luck? Certainly the pitching staff, or 12 of the 25 players on the team, didn't do anything special in June. And heck, even though they did much better at the plate than they did in April, and the runs per game average from those two months are pretty close.

 

The Cubs were probably as fortunate to win like they did in June as they were unfortunate to lose as many as they did early on.

 

I just said there was a correlation between wins and the tirade. They have won much more frequently since that date. But as Derwood mentioned, corelation doesn't equal causation.

[Jon]

Look at how much more often the white flag has been hoisted since the tirade to find the correlation you so desperately desire.

But is that the result of them playing better or a result of luck? Certainly the pitching staff, or 12 of the 25 players on the team, didn't do anything special in June. And heck, even though they did much better at the plate than they did in April, and the runs per game average from those two months are pretty close.

 

The Cubs were probably as fortunate to win like they did in June as they were unfortunate to lose as many as they did early on.

 

I just said there was a correlation between wins and the tirade. They have won much more frequently since that date. But as Derwood mentioned, corelation doesn't equal causation.

Right, but my point is that I don't even see any correlation between the tirade and their actual production. It's not even an issue of causation.

[UK1679666180]

That's also around the time Theriot became the everyday SS, Fontenot would arrive 1 week later, Marmol began a more valuable role out of the pen while Eyre took a lesser role.

 

Between Zambrano getting hot and everything I previously mentioned with Lou figuring out what works and what doesn't, I put more stock into that than a tirade leading to a 2 month hot streak.

 

They got confidence from playing well and building upon that, not a manager getting tossed. Every team gets hot for stretches the Cubs have combined that and usually having more talent than the opponent to play well for the last 60 days.