Re: Bill James Explains the "Curse"

[JonnyRed]

I think there is something to be said for the day baseball factor. We're the only team in baseball playing as many day games, which in the dead of summer and after a night out on the town, can be hell on a player.

 

It's not that difficult to identify why teams usually win the World Series, they get hot at the absolutely perfect time. Look at the Sox from 05. None of the experts predicted them to even make the WS, let alone win it. Yet the road the hottest playoff pitching I've seen in quite some time (and a bit of luck) to the title. If the Cubs had a couple of key hitters (Soriano, Ram, D-Lee) get hot last fall, there's no reason why we couldn't have been facing the Red Sox for the title. The same holds true this season.

[JeffH]

BP on the Cubs (the number is their NL ranking)

 

2. Chicago Cubs (94-68, 795 RS, 677 RA). The Cubs don’t have a leadoff hitter, so adding Brian Roberts would be worth a bit more than the models suggest. The switch-hitter with OBP would really help a lineup that lists to the right side. As good as the 2003 and 1998 teams were, this is the best Cubs team in a very long time. They’ll score, they’ll strike out a bunch of guys, and the defense is pretty good. The Cubs aren’t just NL Central good; the Cubs are MLB good.

 

Baseball Prospectus is clearly a ridiculous collection of dumbbells.

 

94 wins? Get real.

[KingCubsFan]

BP on the Cubs (the number is their NL ranking)

 

2. Chicago Cubs (94-68, 795 RS, 677 RA). The Cubs don’t have a leadoff hitter, so adding Brian Roberts would be worth a bit more than the models suggest. The switch-hitter with OBP would really help a lineup that lists to the right side. As good as the 2003 and 1998 teams were, this is the best Cubs team in a very long time. They’ll score, they’ll strike out a bunch of guys, and the defense is pretty good. The Cubs aren’t just NL Central good; the Cubs are MLB good.

No mention for the 2004 team?