4/7 GT Cubs(Dempster) vs. Braves(Jurjens) 6:10 CST CSN+

[TruffleShuffle]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

 

You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.

 

What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part.

 

 

Grabow should not have been in. Marshall/Caridad/Russell would have all been better choices.

 

marshall is probably better but was already out; caridad and russell have next to no major league experience and less-than-overwhelming minor league stuff.

 

i have to agree with wilson here; there just aren't many good pitchers in the bullpen and when you're trying to get three scoreless innings out of a collection of not-very-good options, a lot of the time you're going to fail.

[TruffleShuffle]

Law of averages? That doesn't apply here.

 

102 years. There's your "law of averages"

 

DIDN'T SEE THIS POST COMING

[erik316wttn]

Law of averages? That doesn't apply here.

 

102 years. There's your "law of averages"

 

DIDN'T SEE THIS POST COMING

 

Am I wrong?

[JimSorgi]

What happened in 102 years?

[InconspicuousZ28]

I've watched 2.5 innings of the Cubs season so far, I'm glad I didn't waste anymore time on this horrific team.

 

This is great......I won't have to waste time listening to/watching this team over the summer.

[NewUserName]

Nothing like only scoring 2 runs to make the bullpen look like a big problem.

[weis21]

How about the law of averages then? Nobody expects a .500 team to win-one lose-one for the whole year.

 

The law of averages is usually misapplied and turns into gambler's fallacy.

 

You expect a .500-team to play .500 for the future. You don't expect them to play better to make up for playing worse before.

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

 

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

Not on the ledge, its only 2 games.... Major positives tonight, Soriano looked good at the plate AND on the bases, Dempster looked great, the cubs hitters worked the count but dont seem totally sharp yet. The Fook hit the ball hard! The Cubs have an extremely favorable schedule early so we can get these back lets just take tommorrows game.

[erik316wttn]

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

 

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction.

 

This. The law of averages is a bunch of crap.

[bcl412]

I don't understand why some are getting that upset (well, I do) but we lost two games to a team who very well could be one of the better ones in the league.

 

After this series we have a fairly favorable schedule for the rest of April.

[weis21]

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

 

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction.

 

This. The law of averages is a bunch of crap.

Well that settles it.

[A-Cal]

Bradley just cracked a 2R dinger!

[JimSorgi]

Not on the ledge, its only 2 games.... Major positives tonight, Soriano looked good at the plate

But dude, he's in a slump!

[erik316wttn]

Bradley just cracked a 2R dinger!

 

Did he murder any puppies on his trot around the bases?

[David]

 

This. The law of averages is a bunch of crap.

 

 

What nonsense are you babbling?

 

You literally have no idea what you think you're arguing about.

[weis21]

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

 

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction.

I understand your point. I just don't think it's practical in this scenario.

[erik316wttn]

Not on the ledge, its only 2 games.... Major positives tonight, Soriano looked good at the plate AND on the bases, Dempster looked great, the cubs hitters worked the count but dont seem totally sharp yet. The Fook hit the ball hard! The Cubs have an extremely favorable schedule early so we can get these back lets just take tommorrows game.

 

We did work a pretty good pitcher tonight, too. A lot of balls were hit hard, a lot were hit into bad luck. It would have been nice to score a run with a hit, though. Marshall looks great so far.

 

There are positives. I'm just hoping we win a few here and there and don't have something like a 2-8 start to the year.

[David]

How about the law of averages then? Nobody expects a .500 team to win-one lose-one for the whole year.

 

The law of averages is usually misapplied and turns into gambler's fallacy.

 

You expect a .500-team to play .500 for the future. You don't expect them to play better to make up for playing worse before.

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

 

 

Pretty much. Even though technically, Kyle is 100% right, I'm not sure why he's acting like his point has any real substance to it.

 

Yes, a team with an expectation of winning half its games that starts out 0-2 is then "expected" to go 80-82. So what?

[erik316wttn]

 

This. The law of averages is a bunch of crap.

 

 

What nonsense are you babbling?

 

You literally have no idea what you think you're arguing about.

 

Well, I guess that settles it. I've been proven wrong.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

 

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction.

I understand your point. I just don't think it's practical in this scenario.

 

It's a finite season. 2 losses in a period where most teams would expect one win should always subtract 1 win from a team's projected totals. I don't know what the odds are of one win making the difference for a playoff spot or not, but it's definitely non-zero. The Cubs' playoff odds are a little worse than they were before the season started.

 

Similarly, any team that started out 2-0 can add one win to their projected total.

[David]

 

This. The law of averages is a bunch of crap.

 

 

What nonsense are you babbling?

 

You literally have no idea what you think you're arguing about.

 

Well, I guess that settles it. I've been proven wrong.

 

 

Make a point with any substance to it and I'll gladly take it back. Go ahead.

 

 

ONE HUNDRED AND TWO YEARS. THAT'S THE POINT.

[erik316wttn]

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

 

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction.

I understand your point. I just don't think it's practical in this scenario.

 

It's a finite season. 2 losses in a period where most teams would expect one win should always subtract 1 win from a team's projected totals. I don't know what the odds are of one win making the difference for a playoff spot or not, but it's definitely non-zero. The Cubs' playoff odds are a little worse than they were before the season started.

 

Similarly, any team that started out 2-0 can add one win to their projected total.

 

Damn you and your logical, well-thought-out arguments!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Yes, a team with an expectation of winning half its games that starts out 0-2 is then "expected" to go 80-82. So what?

 

So there is some percentage chance that any given loss will be the difference between playoffs and no playoffs. While it's true that an 0-2 start is far too small a sample to change any projections about the team's true talent level, the odds of making the playoffs have now dropped a little. That's important.

[David]

 

Damn you and your logical, well-thought-out arguments!

 

 

The part that you're missing is that nobody is disagreeing with Kyle in an absolute/technical sense.