I know I shouldn't panic...

[C.C.]

A 1-8 stretch sheds new light on how good the team may or may not be, which still does have a small effect on postseason success.

 

It can't just be shrugged off.

 

Unless you weren't under the illusion that the team was somehow incapable of a bad 10 game stretch of baseball. I'm not sure that can be said about any baseball team, ever.

 

 

The 2001 Mariners. I don't think they knew what a slump felt like.

 

That doesn't mean they weren't capable of it.

 

Capable or not they proved incapable of a bad 10 game stretch for that year. Unless you consider 4-6 a bad stretch of baseball.

 

Isn't a 2-5 stretch a bad stretch of baseball? Why's it have to be 10? And I understand you're refuting about no team being capable of going without a bad stretch, but what's the point of this? That we're not a 116 win talent team? Nobody's ever suggested this. It's pretty much simple math that a 116 win team isn't going to have bad stretches, otherwise they'd be too incredible for words the rest of the year.

 

I didn't say it had to be 10. I was replying to David's post about if any team is incapable of a bad 10 game stretch, and that got me thinking to the 2001 Mariners. Not sure if there's a point to be made. Just a conversation piece I guess.

[JeffH]

The 1-8 streak has only knocked about 0.5% off of the playoff probability, so there hasn't been a real reason to panic. This stretch is nauseating, but it hasn't even begun to meaningfully alter postseason odds.

 

I assume that these playoff odds only take into account the season statistics as a whole and not how the team has played lately. I further assume that they cannot and have not taken into account the human factors ("choking").

 

The actual likelihood of us missing the playoffs altogether has to be much higher than 1%.

 

Give me a # Jeff.

 

Given all of the factors involved, I'd say it has to be at least 5%.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You guys are using a knowledge of statistics to insert some fuzzy logic that doesn't quite follow.

 

The fact that a 1-8 run was *possible* for the Cubs team before doesn't mean that we shouldn't downgrade our best guess of their talent level because it actually happened. Not a huge downgrade, but a downgrade nonetheless.

 

A fluke bad 1-8 stretch for a .650 team is possible, but when the 1-8 stretch actually happens, fluke is the least probable of the possible explanations. The most probable is that the team wasn't really a .650 talent team.

 

The downgrade in our estimation of the Cubs talent from a 1-8 stretch may not be huge, but it is there.

[third eye]

You guys are using a knowledge of statistics to insert some fuzzy logic that doesn't quite follow.

 

The fact that a 1-8 run was *possible* for the Cubs team before doesn't mean that we shouldn't downgrade our best guess of their talent level because it actually happened. Not a huge downgrade, but a downgrade nonetheless.

 

A fluke bad 1-8 stretch for a .650 team is possible, but when the 1-8 stretch actually happens, fluke is the least probable of the possible explanations. The most probable is that the team wasn't really a .650 talent team.

 

The downgrade in our estimation of the Cubs talent from a 1-8 stretch may not be huge, but it is there.

 

I agree with this. But I considered them closer to a .600 team that had a somewhated flukey run on the positive side as well. Yes, the 1-8 alters your estimation of the team marginally, but the degree to which it matters might also depend on whether you were overestimating them before. I didn't really think they were a .630 team as their record indicated. In any case, they just really need to be a .500 team the rest of the way to not have to worry about the odds.

[wvcbxl]

...but seriously, when are the Cobs going to actually win a game?

 

The Cubs will win a lot of games in October. :oldbluekoolaid:

[swordsman]

...but seriously, when are the Cobs going to actually win a game?

 

The Cubs will win a lot of games in October. :oldbluekoolaid:

 

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8936/beveragekoolaidfm4.jpg

[jersey cubs fan]

...but seriously, when are the Cobs going to actually win a game?

 

The Cubs will win a lot of games in October. :oldbluekoolaid:

 

11 at the most

[SouthSideRyan]

You guys are using a knowledge of statistics to insert some fuzzy logic that doesn't quite follow.

 

The fact that a 1-8 run was *possible* for the Cubs team before doesn't mean that we shouldn't downgrade our best guess of their talent level because it actually happened. Not a huge downgrade, but a downgrade nonetheless.

 

A fluke bad 1-8 stretch for a .650 team is possible, but when the 1-8 stretch actually happens, fluke is the least probable of the possible explanations. The most probable is that the team wasn't really a .650 talent team.

 

The downgrade in our estimation of the Cubs talent from a 1-8 stretch may not be huge, but it is there.

 

The Cubs haven't been at a 650 clip since April 26th. I don't see anybody, anywhere arguing that the Cubs are a 105 win talent team. Nobody was doing that when we were 35 games over 500. What people have problems with are people arguing that we're going to play the rest of the season at a .300 clip because of a 1-8 stretch. It's insanity.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The .650 was hypothetical. The point remains for a .600 team.

 

Brushing off a 1-8 stretch as utterly nothing is just as bad as assuming it'll go for the rest of the season.

[SouthSideRyan]

The .650 was hypothetical. The point remains for a .600 team.

 

Brushing off a 1-8 stretch as utterly nothing is just as bad as assuming it'll go for the rest of the season.

 

To the reassurance thread.