2011 Preseason "Expert" evaluation thread

[Banedon]

Pretty self-explanatory. Post any links to preseason grades/projections/predictions/etc here.

 

This first one is more of an "offseason" thing but I think it counts...

 

Jason Starks' NL Central Offseason report card.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=6100920

 

Gives the Cubs a B.

[UMFan83]

I flipped through a bunch of preseason prognostication magazines (USA Today, Lindys, Athlon, and another one), and 2 of them had the Cubs finishing 4th, the other 2 had them finishing 5th in the Central. The 2 magazines that were updated enough to have Garza on the roster were split (1 4th, 1 5th). No Cubs were mentioned for any awards or anything like that.

 

I feel like 75% of the predictions had Boston vs. Philly in the World Series.

[Post Count Padder]

I flipped through a bunch of preseason prognostication magazines (USA Today, Lindys, Athlon, and another one), and 2 of them had the Cubs finishing 4th, the other 2 had them finishing 5th in the Central. The 2 magazines that were updated enough to have Garza on the roster were split (1 4th, 1 5th). No Cubs were mentioned for any awards or anything like that.

 

I feel like 75% of the predictions had Boston vs. Philly in the World Series.

Seems about right on that last bit. Boston-Philly World Series seems pretty likely.

 

I can see the Cubs finishing at least third. Lot of things can happen and I think the Central is pretty close between Cubs, Cards, Reds and Brewers. There's no way the Astros or Pirates finish better than us.

[Guest]

Yeah, anyone who doesn't have Pittsburgh and Houston as 5/6 or vice versa needs to wear aluminum foil so we know who they are.

[UMFan83]

Yeah, anyone who doesn't have Pittsburgh and Houston as 5/6 or vice versa needs to wear aluminum foil so we know who they are.

 

I agree at this point, but we could have said the same thing about Houston last year and look where they finished compared to us.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

Preliminary Pecota standings had the Cubs at 70 wins. Am I wrong to believe there is little likelihood the Cubs will be worse than last year? The pitching staff is going to be better, the lineup "should" be better, the bullpen should be slightly better, and the bench and defense should be similar. It is also a pretty safe bet the Cubs will not go 12-23 versus the Astros and Pirates.

 

I do not see this team finishing below .500, as I like to see them underrated after looking at all the projections I think the Cubs are being vastly underrated this season. They have many players with a lot to prove but the ability is definitely there.

[UMFan83]

I'm not sure. We obviously went 24-13 to finish the season, and before that stretch we played 66 win baseball over the first 125 games (51-74). I don't want to outright dismiss the 24-13 finish, but it was a bit hollow IMO. The pitching was very good but the hitting was actually worse than it was before Quade took over. I am going to guess our pythag record over those 37 games was not anywhere near 24-13. Plus a bunch of those games are part of September baseball, with call ups and expanded rosters, etc. It's hard to accurately evaluate a team in those settings.

 

It's possible they could be worse than last year but I think its more likely they are the same or slightly better. Not sure why PECOTA is down on us this year other than the fact that our team in general is old, although not nearly as old as last year's team.

[TruffleShuffle]

Yeah, anyone who doesn't have Pittsburgh and Houston as 5/6 or vice versa needs to wear aluminum foil so we know who they are.

 

but you said last offseason:

 

I'd put a lot of money on us being better than the Reds.

 

the Reds aren't good and they aren't going anywhere soon.

[Guest]

So you think Pittsburgh and/or Houston are going to finish ahead of the Cubs?

[TruffleShuffle]

probably not, but nobody thought houston would finish ahead of the cubs last year, so who knows

[UMFan83]

So you think Pittsburgh and/or Houston are going to finish ahead of the Cubs?

 

I don't think they will but I certainly don't think a person is immediately dumb if they think so. At least until further questioning.

[Guest]

So you think Pittsburgh and/or Houston are going to finish ahead of the Cubs?

 

I don't think they will but I certainly don't think a person is immediately dumb if they think so. At least until further questioning.

 

 

If they THINK so, they're probably pretty dumb.

 

If it happens, it happens... but to look at the situation now and predict that those teams will finish ahead of a better team is pretty much the opposite of smart.

[Sammy Sofa]

So you think Pittsburgh and/or Houston are going to finish ahead of the Cubs?

 

I don't think they will but I certainly don't think a person is immediately dumb if they think so. At least until further questioning.

 

 

If they THINK so, they're probably pretty dumb.

 

If it happens, it happens... but to look at the situation now and predict that those teams will finish ahead of a better team is pretty much the opposite of smart.

 

Right. Thinking that could happen is reasonable. Thinking that it will happen or is likely to happen is being erik.

[TruffleShuffle]

i don't really agree with that. sometimes people make good predictions. i remember one guy last year felt confident that the reds and cubs were going in opposite directions last offseason, said so on this board and got mocked from about 10 different directions. turns out he was right, and it's not like the cubs had wall-to-wall injuries or the reds had miraculous performances from their entire roster - the reds were just a much better team.

[Guest]

Right, we're talking about highest probability stuff here. I could just as easily say something like the Cubs will win the Central. It's unlikely to happen barring some unique circumstances, and there isn't a way to come to that conclusion in a truly reasonable fashion. That doesn't mean it can't ever happen, or that the odds of it happening are tantamount to winning the lottery. It means you aren't using your brain if you think that's the most probable(or second or third most probable) outcome.

[Sammy Sofa]

i don't really agree with that. sometimes people make good predictions. i remember one guy last year felt confident that the reds and cubs were going in opposite directions last offseason, said so on this board and got mocked from about 10 different directions. turns out he was right, and it's not like the cubs had wall-to-wall injuries or the reds had miraculous performances from their entire roster - the reds were just a much better team.

 

The Cubs had some pretty significant under-performance in some critical areas, plus I disagree with the idea that they're headed in "opposite directions."

[Guest]

That's the thing about last year. It's one thing to have a bad season. It's another to have finished behind that horrible looking Houston Astros line up. Yeesh.

 

A lot of things had to go wrong for them to finish below the Astros. And they did. It's a fool's bet to think that either of those teams could finish ahead of the Cubs this year.

[TruffleShuffle]

The Cubs had some pretty significant under-performance in some critical areas, plus I disagree with the idea that they're headed in "opposite directions."

 

take a look at how much of the reds' WAR last year came from players under 30. 4/5 of their rotation was 24 or under and that's not including volquez, who's 26 and didn't pitch for most of the year.

[davell]

I think we're going to finish 4th, behind the Brewers, Reds, and Cards in that order. But, we could win the division too. I really don't see all that much separation between these 4 teams.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs had some pretty significant under-performance in some critical areas, plus I disagree with the idea that they're headed in "opposite directions."

 

take a look at how much of the reds' WAR last year came from players under 30. 4/5 of their rotation was 24 or under and that's not including volquez, who's 26 and didn't pitch for most of the year.

 

Nobody's denying that the Reds have a good, young team. "Opposite directions," however, implies that the Cubs are moving to become cellar-dwellers like the Pirates for the foreseeable future. They're not. We're going to see a lot of turnover in the very near future of the Cubs getting better and younger.

[TruffleShuffle]

The Cubs had some pretty significant under-performance in some critical areas, plus I disagree with the idea that they're headed in "opposite directions."

 

take a look at how much of the reds' WAR last year came from players under 30. 4/5 of their rotation was 24 or under and that's not including volquez, who's 26 and didn't pitch for most of the year.

 

Nobody's denying that the Reds have a good, young team. "Opposite directions," however, implies that the Cubs are moving to become cellar-dwellers like the Pirates for the foreseeable future. They're not. We're going to see a lot of turnover in the very near future of the Cubs getting better and younger.

 

the comment about them going in opposite directions was made last offseason. i don't see how you can say it wasn't true when the cubs looked old and lousy last year while the reds got a huge amount of production out of young players.

[Guest]

We're going to see a lot of turnover in the very near future of the Cubs getting better and younger.

Getting younger, yes, getting better, I don't know. They also just gave up a lot of the potential future to get Garza. I think the Cubs are going to be bad to really bad for a while as the Rickets decide who they want to be. If they stick to their stated plan, the long term looks good though.

[Guest]

i don't really agree with that. sometimes people make good predictions. i remember one guy last year felt confident that the reds and cubs were going in opposite directions last offseason, said so on this board and got mocked from about 10 different directions. turns out he was right, and it's not like the cubs had wall-to-wall injuries or the reds had miraculous performances from their entire roster - the reds were just a much better team.

 

To me, it's more likely that he got lucky than that there was anything "good" about his prediction.

 

He'd have to show a pretty long/consistent history with a decent success rate to make me think he was actually just good at making predictions.

[Guest]

We're going to see a lot of turnover in the very near future of the Cubs getting better and younger.

Getting younger, yes, getting better, I don't know. They also just gave up a lot of the potential future to get Garza. I think the Cubs are going to be bad to really bad for a while as the Rickets decide who they want to be. If they stick to their stated plan, the long term looks good though.

 

 

Garza is part of the future. He's 27 years old.

[davell]

I don't think things look bleak by any stretch moving forward. We've got plenty of money coming off the books starting next year and quite a bit of it is from useless players that are easy as hell to replace for alot cheaper than what we're paying them. We've got a solid group of youngsters that are going to be cheap for a while and we should be able to make trades or sign big name guys starting next year. Add in the fact that if things go right this year, we could win the division, I'm OK with our situation honestly. It's not perfect and we're paying for some past sins, but we're definitely not in the mess that the Mets or Dodgers are either.