2008 Cubs=2005 White Sox?

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

I wouldn't say that. I would say that the evidence points to the fact that there is no effect at all. I would tend to agree that a cause isn't always needed to be known in order to say that an effect is probably real. I just don't see an effect anywhere (which I realize now wasn't really the point of what you were trying to get across and you were instead going more hypothetical).

 

And it's true that there is continuity from year to year, but the Cubs have had very little of it. 3 players are left from the 03 team. Only a couple more were added that are still here from 04. Even the turnover from 07 to 08 has been fairly significant, especially when you consider what the roster was in the first half of 07.

[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.

 

I wouldn't say that. I would say that the evidence points to the fact that there is no effect at all. I would tend to agree that a cause isn't always needed to be known in order to say that an effect is probably real. I just don't see an effect anywhere (which I realize now wasn't really the point of what you were trying to get across and you were instead going more hypothetical).

 

And it's true that there is continuity from year to year, but the Cubs have had very little of it. 3 players are left from the 03 team. Only a couple more were added that are still here from 04. Even the turnover from 07 to 08 has been fairly significant, especially when you consider what the roster was in the first half of 07.

 

And who picked those players? And who picked him to pick those players?

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

I wouldn't say that. I would say that the evidence points to the fact that there is no effect at all. I would tend to agree that a cause isn't always needed to be known in order to say that an effect is probably real. I just don't see an effect anywhere (which I realize now wasn't really the point of what you were trying to get across and you were instead going more hypothetical).

 

And it's true that there is continuity from year to year, but the Cubs have had very little of it. 3 players are left from the 03 team. Only a couple more were added that are still here from 04. Even the turnover from 07 to 08 has been fairly significant, especially when you consider what the roster was in the first half of 07.

 

And who picked those players? And who picked him to pick those players?

 

So unless a GM wins it all in his first few years, we shoudl expect his teams to fail?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So unless a GM wins it all in his first few years, we shoudl expect his teams to fail?

 

Nope. I'm simply saying that there is no reason to treat each and every team as a completely independent event, and deny all possibility that valid data can be gleaned by examining the past.

[SouthSideRyan]

So unless a GM wins it all in his first few years, we shoudl expect his teams to fail?

 

Nope. I'm simply saying that there is no reason to treat each and every team as a completely independent event, and deny all possibility that valid data can be gleaned by examining the past.

 

Well the fact is that 29 out of 30 GMs are failures every year. To attempt to glean anything out of how players will play based on how previous players played acquired by that GM seems foolish to do at the end of a season. If you want to judge offseason transactions that way, I could understand(i.e. GM 1 has a great scouting eye, so even if this guy's #s don't seem that great, I trust him that there's talent in this guy waiting to come out. Or GM 2 loves spending on mediocrity and has shown no real ability to identify anything but tools goofs, so this guy will probably be just another free swinging 220 hitter with power potential.)

 

After we have the full year's worth of data on the players, I think that's what we should be basing our judgements off of, not what Neifi Perez did in a Cub uniform.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So unless a GM wins it all in his first few years, we shoudl expect his teams to fail?

 

Nope. I'm simply saying that there is no reason to treat each and every team as a completely independent event, and deny all possibility that valid data can be gleaned by examining the past.

 

Well the fact is that 29 out of 30 GMs are failures every year. To attempt to glean anything out of how players will play based on how previous players played acquired by that GM seems foolish to do at the end of a season. If you want to judge offseason transactions that way, I could understand(i.e. GM 1 has a great scouting eye, so even if this guy's #s don't seem that great, I trust him that there's talent in this guy waiting to come out. Or GM 2 loves spending on mediocrity and has shown no real ability to identify anything but tools goofs, so this guy will probably be just another free swinging 220 hitter with power potential.)

 

After we have the full year's worth of data on the players, I think that's what we should be basing our judgements off of, not what Neifi Perez did in a Cub uniform.

 

This isn't about some binary "did the team succeed or fail" issue.

 

With your regards to GMs, why can't we say "This GM has built several teams that have faded late." or "This GM has built several teams that finished well."

 

And from there, is it that far of a leap to "This organization has developed pitchers who hold up well late into the season" or "This organization has been bad at identifying hitters that hold up late into the year" or "This organization has acquired hitters that do poorly against No. 1-3 starters."

 

All I'm saying is that the stock response of "Information about the XXXX Cubs has no bearing on 2008 Cubs" isn't really a valid statement.

[biittner77]

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.

 

Wouldn't you have to say though that this year's team was assembled partly witha different organizational philosophy on offense? The 03 & 04 teams were free swinging hacks that would have to look up what a walk was in the dictionary. For all it's regular season dominance, the 84 was also flawed in some important ways.

 

As to the bolded part, every year is different. No roster is ever completely the same 2 years in a row. This will also be the first time the Cubs have made the playoffs in back to back years since divisional play (for that matter probably the 30s)

[27up27down]

All I'm saying is that the stock response of "Information about the XXXX Cubs has no bearing on 2008 Cubs" isn't really a valid statement.

Listen man, I'm all for questioning conventional wisdom, but the burden of proof falls squarely on you in this instance. As someone mentioned before, there isn't a shred of statistical evidence that supports what you're claiming. There's nothing wrong with trying to stir up a little debate, but all you've brought to the table is "Maybe there's something about Jim Hendry that makes him pick players that aren't clutch." Like...seriously?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

All I'm saying is that the stock response of "Information about the XXXX Cubs has no bearing on 2008 Cubs" isn't really a valid statement.

Listen man, I'm all for questioning conventional wisdom, but the burden of proof falls squarely on you in this instance. As someone mentioned before, there isn't a shred of statistical evidence that supports what you're claiming. There's nothing wrong with trying to stir up a little debate, but all you've brought to the table is "Maybe there's something about Jim Hendry that makes him pick players that aren't clutch." Like...seriously?

 

This is a larger point than whether or not the Hendry Cubs specifically have an unclutch attribute.

 

It's a point that over the long term, organizations are distinctive and there's no reason to completely dismiss anything that happened in an organization before the current season.

 

I'm not arguing a positive point, I'm arguing for the possibility of an effect.

[SoonerCubFan]

All I'm saying is that the stock response of "Information about the XXXX Cubs has no bearing on 2008 Cubs" isn't really a valid statement.

 

I get your point, but have to lean toward the side that says it doesn't have a bearing. Case in point, 2006 Cardinals. They spent all of 2000-2005 with generally better to much better teams than 2006, yet always failed to do anything at the end, making one World Series and even then, failing to even lead a single inning. Then in 2006, with one of the worst regular season teams to make the post season in MLB history, they win it all. Same people in the front office and managing/coaching - much moreso than the Cubs of 2003-2008.

 

I agree with the other poster's point about the players as well - only TWO players are left from 2003 and THREE from 2004 in their same role(s). The manager is different. Perhaps biggest of all is that the Front Office/Ownership has taken a much different approach to assembling the team than anytime in our lifetimes, and shows every indication that they will continue to invest aggressively in keeping a contender in play each year for the foreseeable future, which is the REAL key to ever eventually having October success.

 

If they fail to win it all this year, it will be on the merits of a new, unique set of circumstances. The parallels to the 2005 Sox is very interesting to see how it plays out, but we all know it is up to what the players do or don't do from here on out that will tell the tale.

[TruffleShuffle]

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.

 

plus a lot of teams have a history of collapsing down the stretch. the dodgers had great chances in 1942 and 1951 but didn't make the playoffs. the 1964 phillies lost 10 games in a row to end the 1964 season and lost the pennant by a game. the 1993 giants blew it. the 1995 angels had a 1 in 8000 chance of missing the playoffs. the red sox were above 92% chance to make the playoffs at various points in the 2000, 2001 and 2002 seasons, and didn't make it in any of those years. not to mention the 1978 red sox. 2005 indians? 2007 mets? 2004 yankees in the playoffs?

 

for every year like 1969 and 2004 in the cubs' history, there have been 10 years like 2002 and 2006, when the cubs were completely uncompetitive. nobody associates the giants or dodgers or yankees or red sox (well, not any more) with choking because they've done plenty of good things in their history. for the cubs, the problem has not been choking down the stretch, it's been putting a team on the field that's good enough to be in contention down the stretch.

[Ender]

The Cubs are a good team this year, the White Sox were a team that had their entire rotation have career years in 2005. They had a better team in 2006 and failed to make the playoffs because they didn't get lucky that year.