2008 Cubs=2005 White Sox?

[apete6]

In 2005, the White Sox had a record of 87-51 (36 games over .500) before losing 6 out of 7 and starting a run of 7-12 combined with the rise of the Indians. Their lead got down to 2 games with 5 to go...and then they won their last 5 games, including the last 3 IN Cleveland to finish at 99-63 (36 games over .500) and then went on to go 11-1 in the postseason, culminating in a World Championship.

 

In 2008, the Chicago Cubs had a record of 85-50 before losing at least 4 in a row. I guess we'll just have to see how the rest works out. Well, our last 3 games are IN Milwaukee.

 

Go Cubs and figure this thing out.

[manbearcub]

Dont forget the 06 Cardinals.

[Schwarber Fan]

This has crossed my mind, I'm not gonna lie

[Little Slide Rooter]

Ive thought that for a while, however, the White Sox as an organization dont have that weird history of collpasing down the stretch. Yes, Im well aware that what happened in 1969 and 2004 has no bearing over 2008, but its still an eerie cloud that looms above.

[Derwood]

the last 2 losses have been coupled with losses by MIL and STL, so we haven't lost ground. I'm a little worried, but this isn't like Cleveland catching up to the Sox

[UMFan83]

If we have a repeat of 1969 I'll burn down my house.

 

I really will. You guys can all come over and take pictures.

[David]

Ive thought that for a while, however, the White Sox as an organization dont have that weird history of collpasing down the stretch. Yes, Im well aware that what happened in 1969 and 2004 has no bearing over 2008, but its still an eerie cloud that looms above.

 

 

Yea, that really means nothing in terms of the 2008 Cubs.

 

Hell, the 2005 White Sox have nothing to do with the 2008 Cubs either, for that matter, but people need to find comfort in different ways. That's cool.

[Gingerballs Lives]

I was hoping that the Coobs face some adversity before the playoffs. They need to go in there with a nothing-to-lose attitude.

 

Right now, they are playing like they have everything to lose. I don't mind them getting tested now because I think it'll be good for them in October.

 

However, we're going to need some healthy pitchers to win the WS, though.

[David]

the last 2 losses have been coupled with losses by MIL and STL, so we haven't lost ground. I'm a little worried, but this isn't like Cleveland catching up to the Sox

 

What's amazing is I'm pretty sure our odds have improved the last couple days just by virtue of knocking a day off the calendar.

 

Not that it's ok for them to lose all the time, but it is funny given what's going on.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Ive thought that for a while, however, the White Sox as an organization dont have that weird history of collpasing down the stretch. Yes, Im well aware that what happened in 1969 and 2004 has no bearing over 2008, but its still an eerie cloud that looms above.

 

 

Yea, that really means nothing in terms of the 2008 Cubs.

 

Hell, the 2005 White Sox have nothing to do with the 2008 Cubs either, for that matter, but people need to find comfort in different ways. That's cool.

 

All that matters is that the May-August Cubs mean something in terms of the September-October Cubs.

[27up27down]

I was hoping that the Coobs face some adversity before the playoffs. They need to go in there with a nothing-to-lose attitude.

 

Right now, they are playing like they have everything to lose. I don't mind them getting tested now because I think it'll be good for them in October.

 

However, we're going to need some healthy pitchers to win the WS, though.

Absolutely. I agree with not wanting them to get complacent, but if Lou's the manager we all think he is, there's no reason to worry about that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ive thought that for a while, however, the White Sox as an organization dont have that weird history of collpasing down the stretch. Yes, Im well aware that what happened in 1969 and 2004 has no bearing over 2008, but its still an eerie cloud that looms above.

 

 

Yea, that really means nothing in terms of the 2008 Cubs.

 

Hell, the 2005 White Sox have nothing to do with the 2008 Cubs either, for that matter, but people need to find comfort in different ways. That's cool.

 

I'm still not convinced that empirically means nothing.

 

The 2008 Cubs are not a completely independent event. They have connections to past teams. 2003 and 2004 Cubs, for example, were chosen by the same men who chose the 2008 Cubs.

[27up27down]

I'm still not convinced that empirically means nothing.

 

The 2008 Cubs are not a completely independent event. They have connections to past teams. 2003 and 2004 Cubs, for example, were chosen by the same men who chose the 2008 Cubs.

So because Alex Gonzalez booted a ground ball and the same people who picked Alex Gonzalez also picked the players on this team...by God you're right!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm still not convinced that empirically means nothing.

 

The 2008 Cubs are not a completely independent event. They have connections to past teams. 2003 and 2004 Cubs, for example, were chosen by the same men who chose the 2008 Cubs.

So because Alex Gonzalez booted a ground ball and the same people who picked Alex Gonzalez also picked the players on this team...by God you're right!

 

We didn't lose the 2003 NLCS because Alex Gonzalez booted a ground ball. We lost the 2003 NLCS because the Marlins won four games out of seven.

 

You are intentionally obfuscating the point when you focus on a single play. The Cubs haven't failed to win a pennant in 63 years because of a single play, they've failed to win because of a large number of events that make up a sample size large enough to draw the conclusion that it may not have been a coincidence.

[27up27down]

Maybe we're not even arguing. 63 years of failure to win the pennant is a product of bad management...agreed. However, when you have a team driving for its 3rd division title in 6 years, the management has earned the right not to be indicted along with those past Cubs failures.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Maybe we're not even arguing. 63 years of failure to win the pennant is a product of bad management...agreed. However, when you have a team driving for its 3rd division title in 6 years, the management has earned the right not to be indicted along with those past Cubs failures.

 

This is still the same management team that put together 2004's collapse, 2003's 3-game collapse and 2007's sweep.

 

Why is it unassailable truth that those were all coincidences?

[YearofDaCubs]

Every scenario is different, especially in baseball.

[SouthSideRyan]

Maybe we're not even arguing. 63 years of failure to win the pennant is a product of bad management...agreed. However, when you have a team driving for its 3rd division title in 6 years, the management has earned the right not to be indicted along with those past Cubs failures.

 

This is still the same management team that put together 2004's collapse, 2003's 3-game collapse and 2007's sweep.

 

Why is it unassailable truth that those were all coincidences?

 

The Braves gave John Schuerholtz way too much time.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Every scenario is different, especially in baseball.

 

But my point is, it's not. The 2008 Cubs are not a completely independent scenario. They are shaped by the management staff of previous years' Cubs, as well as Cubs players who were on previous teams.

 

Perhaps there is something about the types of players Hendry prefers that causes them to be so unsuccessful in late-season sitautions?

 

I'm not saying it's certain, but I'm saying pretending that every single season's edition of the Cubs is an independent run is wrong.

[YearofDaCubs]

Every scenario is different, especially in baseball.

 

But my point is, it's not. The 2008 Cubs are not a completely independent scenario. They are shaped by the management staff of previous years' Cubs, as well as Cubs players who were on previous teams.

 

Perhaps there is something about the types of players Hendry prefers that causes them to be so unsuccessful in late-season sitautions?

 

I'm not saying it's certain, but I'm saying pretending that every single season's edition of the Cubs is an independent run is wrong.

I was talking about comparing the 2008 cubs to the 2005 white sox.

[27up27down]

Perhaps there is something about the types of players Hendry prefers that causes them to be so unsuccessful in late-season sitautions?

If you believe in clutch ability, we've got a whole separate set of problems.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Perhaps there is something about the types of players Hendry prefers that causes them to be so unsuccessful in late-season sitautions?

If you believe in clutch ability, we've got a whole separate set of problems.

 

Nope. But I believe, for example, in pitchers wearing down. Is that something we've seen a lot of examples on with the Cubs in recent years? Something that could perhaps be systemic to the organization itself?

[BigSlick]

Bold statement: The 2008 Cubs are a better team overall than the 2005 White Sox.

 

I'd take their flukey amazing bullpen over ours in an instant of course, but their rotation isn't that much better and our offense is waaaaay better.

[CubColtPacer]

Perhaps there is something about the types of players Hendry prefers that causes them to be so unsuccessful in late-season sitautions?

If you believe in clutch ability, we've got a whole separate set of problems.

 

Nope. But I believe, for example, in pitchers wearing down. Is that something we've seen a lot of examples on with the Cubs in recent years? Something that could perhaps be systemic to the organization itself?

 

Cubs rank in runs in the 4 potential playoff years

2003: 9th

2004: 7th

2007: 8th

2008: 1st

 

Cubs ranks in September of those 4 years:

2003: 5th

2004: 10th

2007: 5th

2008: 15th (in 3 games)

 

Cubs ranks in run allowed:

2003: 3rd

2004: 3rd

2007: 2nd

2008: 2nd

 

Cubs ranks in run allowed (September):

2003: 1st

2004: 1st

2007: 5th

2008: 8th (in 3 games)

 

Now obviously this is a very quick and cursory look at the numbers and is prone to error. However, I see no real evidence that Hendry teams consistently play badly late in the season at all, let alone that there is a clear reason for this problem. The 03 team was better in both pitching and hitting in September. The 04 team was better in pitching, worse in hitting. The 07 team was better in hitting, worse in pitching. And the 08 team so far has been worse in both with a terrible sample size.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So if the sample size is large enough to show an effect, but we can't name a direct cause of the effect, we should assume there is no effect at all?

 

I'm not saying there certainly is a "Cubs choke" effect. I am saying that its wrong to constantly dismiss the possibility on the idea that each Cubs team is a unique permutation and previous years have no effect. It's not as all the MLB players are randomly reassigned to teams each season.