Most ESPN "experts" predict a Cubs victory

[kente777]

According to the so-called experts, 8 out of 10 pick the Cubs in either 4 or 5 games.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2007/series?series=chcari

[justin23iu]

According to the so-called experts, 8 out of 10 pick the Cubs in either 4 or 5 games.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2007/series?series=chcari

 

I believe 4 of the 5 guys on Countdown yesterday picked the Bears to beat the Lions...I wish ESPN would get out of the predictions game.

[NewUserName]

That cant be good.

[kente777]

That cant be good.

 

As long as Z and Lilly aren't put on the cover of SI, we should be OK.

[CuseCubFan69]

Oh God help us all!

 

What does Joe say? One pump of his arm says yes and two pumps mean no.

[Banedon]

I haven't even heard of the guys that picked the Dbacks.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

they'll dominate so badly, they'll win the series in 2 games

[Pushfrog98]

According to the so-called experts, 8 out of 10 pick the Cubs in either 4 or 5 games.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2007/series?series=chcari

 

I believe 4 of the 5 guys on Countdown yesterday picked the Bears to beat the Lions...I wish ESPN would get out of the predictions game.

The ESPN "experts" said Griese would NOT turn the ball over. PERIOD! That's why he would be an upgrade over Grossman.

 

I love it when Experts talk... hopefully they are right this time...

[David]

I haven't even heard of the guys that picked the Dbacks.

 

One of em is Jonah Keri, editor and contributor to Baseball Between the Numbers. I might have to pick up the book. I always meant to and forgot about it.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465005969

[Tracer Bullet]

I haven't even heard of the guys that picked the Dbacks.

 

Jonah Keri is pretty good, I also like Bryant at times.

 

I'm a little nervous about the Stark-Phillips-Caple contingent, but I think it's offset by Neyer, Law, and Gammons.

[David]

I haven't even heard of the guys that picked the Dbacks.

 

One of em is Jonah Keri, editor and contributor to Baseball Between the Numbers. I might have to pick up the book. I always meant to and forgot about it.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465005969

 

Heh, I was looking at reviews for that book, and I found a pretty funny one. Pretty much mirrors a common theme on this board.

 

Some of us like to actually watch and enjoy the game of baseball. Baseball Prospectus and their attempted empire do their best to ruin the enjoyment of watching games and players.

 

The title of this book is so incredibly arrogant. They want us to ignore pitcher's wins and runs batted in as if they are totally meaningless. I do not turn my nose at a twenty game winner, nor do I ignore that fact that some players considered knocking in baserunners to be an important accomplishment. In fact, Hank Greenberg often chided Charlie Gehringer for clearing the bases and not leaving any for him.

 

Instead, they offer complex formulae that tell us who we should consider to be the best. If I prefer Mays over Mantle or A-Rod over Jeter, I do not want someone to come along and give me their definitive answer.

 

What these pencil necked geeks refuse to admit, as anyone who plays with numbers knows, is that the answer is frequently set when you set up the parameters. No matter what BP says, they cannot answer whether good pitching beats good hitting. It cannot and should not be resolved.

 

At the very least, one of the more well spoken arguments against the numbers I've seen, although he did have to resort to the "pencil necked geeks," line. At least he (almost) admits (or at least, seems to suggest) that the reason he doesn't like the numbers is that he wants to keep some of the mystery and sort of innocence of the game in tact.

[hawkeyecub]

Keith Law's analysis of the teams was pretty poor. The more I hear/read the guy, the less I like him.

[Soul]

I hate when ESPN picks us. It always brings bad tidings.

 

They suck at predictions. I'll guarantee you all of them just think Cubs have more vets, therefore they have the advantage -- which is really just bunk. If that was the case then teams like the Angels and Marlins of '03 would never win.

[David]

I hate when ESPN picks us. It always brings bad tidings.

 

They suck at predictions. I'll guarantee you all of them just think Cubs have more vets, therefore they have the advantage -- which is really just bunk. If that was the case then teams like the Angels and Marlins of '03 would never win.

 

It could also have a lot to do with the run differential and the perception that AZ has done it with smoke and mirrors all year. A few of those guys, namely Neyer, aren't exactly dumb.

[Soul]

I hate when ESPN picks us. It always brings bad tidings.

 

They suck at predictions. I'll guarantee you all of them just think Cubs have more vets, therefore they have the advantage -- which is really just bunk. If that was the case then teams like the Angels and Marlins of '03 would never win.

 

It could also have a lot to do with the run differential and the perception that AZ has done it with smoke and mirrors all year. A few of those guys, namely Neyer, aren't exactly dumb.

 

I suppose, I'd need to hear it specifically though. Because it seems like every time I turn on these talking heads they always pick either 1) last year's winner, or 2) the team with the most "veteran presence." It's like a script, just follow along and don't deviate.

[David]

I hate when ESPN picks us. It always brings bad tidings.

 

They suck at predictions. I'll guarantee you all of them just think Cubs have more vets, therefore they have the advantage -- which is really just bunk. If that was the case then teams like the Angels and Marlins of '03 would never win.

 

It could also have a lot to do with the run differential and the perception that AZ has done it with smoke and mirrors all year. A few of those guys, namely Neyer, aren't exactly dumb.

 

I suppose, I'd need to hear it specifically though. Because it seems like every time I turn on these talking heads they always pick either 1) last year's winner, or 2) the team with the most "veteran presence." It's like a script, just follow along and don't deviate.

 

Definitely. I'm not gonna argue with that. There's a few guys there (like Phillips) who would probably use that exact crap reasoning.

[haltz]

At the very least, one of the more well spoken arguments against the numbers I've seen, although he did have to resort to the "pencil necked geeks," line. At least he (almost) admits (or at least, seems to suggest) that the reason he doesn't like the numbers is that he wants to keep some of the mystery and sort of innocence of the game in tact.

It's a terrible argument. If he wants to ignore it he can. If you or I find that analysis makes baseball more enjoyable then that is fine also.

 

I hate that argument. No one is holding a gun to his head, or saying that 20-game winners are bad pitchers.

[David]

At the very least, one of the more well spoken arguments against the numbers I've seen, although he did have to resort to the "pencil necked geeks," line. At least he (almost) admits (or at least, seems to suggest) that the reason he doesn't like the numbers is that he wants to keep some of the mystery and sort of innocence of the game in tact.

It's a terrible argument. If he wants to ignore it he can. If you or I find that analysis makes baseball more enjoyable then that is fine also.

 

I hate that argument. No one is holding a gun to his head, or saying that 20-game winners are bad pitchers.

 

Didn't say it was a good one. Just well spoken. Most of the time I come across an argument against the numbers, it's completely illogical and incoherent.

 

At least this guy can (almost) admit that he's ok with being blind to the truth, and doesn't insist that his truth is right and the numbers are wrong. He just basically says he doesn't want to hear it and just wants to enjoy the game at face value.

[haltz]

The ESPN guys are probably just scared of not picking an NLC team with 85 wins, thanks to last year.

 

I didn't read the article, but these are especially funny when the analysts pick a team in a certain amount of games. Neyer and Keri should know better.

[haltz]

At least this guy can (almost) admit that he's ok with being blind to the truth, and doesn't insist that his truth is right and the numbers are wrong. He just basically says he doesn't want to hear it and just wants to enjoy the game at face value.

I didn't come across as though he accepted it as truth. Just that he hated it, which is fine for him if he wants to remain ignorant about something he's (presumably) passionate about. He seems to go farther than that anyway; this is [expletive] for several reasons:

 

Baseball Prospectus and their attempted empire do their best to ruin the enjoyment of watching games and players.

[Derwood]

At the very least, one of the more well spoken arguments against the numbers I've seen, although he did have to resort to the "pencil necked geeks," line. At least he (almost) admits (or at least, seems to suggest) that the reason he doesn't like the numbers is that he wants to keep some of the mystery and sort of innocence of the game in tact.

It's a terrible argument. If he wants to ignore it he can. If you or I find that analysis makes baseball more enjoyable then that is fine also.

 

I hate that argument. No one is holding a gun to his head, or saying that 20-game winners are bad pitchers.

 

i can safely say that 1998 Kevin Tapani was a bad (almost) 20 game winner

[shnsajax]

As long as Lee Corso or Lou Holtz don't pick us we should be ok. I know its a different sport, but they both like to chime in plus are midwest guys.

 

The fan votes have us at 78% to win. If nothing else Cub fans rule the internet like no other.

Edited October 1, 2007 by shnsajax

[David]

At the very least, one of the more well spoken arguments against the numbers I've seen, although he did have to resort to the "pencil necked geeks," line. At least he (almost) admits (or at least, seems to suggest) that the reason he doesn't like the numbers is that he wants to keep some of the mystery and sort of innocence of the game in tact.

It's a terrible argument. If he wants to ignore it he can. If you or I find that analysis makes baseball more enjoyable then that is fine also.

 

I hate that argument. No one is holding a gun to his head, or saying that 20-game winners are bad pitchers.

 

i can safely say that 1998 Kevin Tapani was a bad (almost) 20 game winner

 

 

2003 Russ Ortiz

[haltz]

Or Denny McClain 1966. There are lots of examples, but you'd think most of the 799 seasons where a pitcher won 20 games were pretty good. Pitcher wins are obviously a terrible measurement though.

[David]

Or Denny McClain 1966. There are lots of examples, but you'd think most of the 799 seasons where a pitcher won 20 games were pretty good. Pitcher wins are obviously a terrible measurement though.

 

Has nothing to do with what you posted... but everytime I read one of your posts, I think you're the dude with the bloody nose in your av.

 

I wonder if you guys think I'm a famous young hot girl.