Random Cubs Musings

[CubColtPacer]

 

Right now they are on a pace to win 74 games (with Garza and Soriano), so a below 70 win season is very likely. I would expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo, but there's a very real possibility that players like Schierholtz, Valbuena, and Wood might be less productive. Obviously it depends on the FAs signed (in your scenario) and hoping that Olt is productive enough to play 3B everyday.

 

 

For our purposes, pythagorean wins mean more than their actual record.

 

Soriano is not very good and Garza was here for 10 starts.

 

Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

 

Of course, that's the end goal. So let me ask you this...why do you think the Cubs have under performed their pythagorean win record? Is it luck, is it the result of a bad bullpen, or is it something else in your opinion?

[Guest]

 

Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

 

lol ok now you're officially just a caricature. congrats.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

 

Who cares how many games they win in the regular season? I want them to build a team that can win in the playoffs.

 

BOOM. Meatball one-upped!

[mul21]

Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

 

Who cares how many games they win in the regular season? I want them to build a team that can win in the playoffs.

 

BOOM. Meatball one-upped!

 

=D>

[davell]

Kudos, Kyle.

[Backtobanks]

Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

 

Who cares how many games they win in the regular season? I want them to build a team that can win in the playoffs.

 

BOOM. Meatball one-upped!

 

In the pythagorean playoffs or the actual playoffs. :yahoo:

[Guest]

Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

 

Who cares how many games they win in the regular season? I want them to build a team that can win in the playoffs.

 

BOOM. Meatball one-upped!

 

In the pythagorean playoffs or the actual playoffs. :yahoo:

 

NO. Stop it now.

[Backtobanks]

 

Right now they are on a pace to win 74 games (with Garza and Soriano), so a below 70 win season is very likely. I would expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo, but there's a very real possibility that players like Schierholtz, Valbuena, and Wood might be less productive. Obviously it depends on the FAs signed (in your scenario) and hoping that Olt is productive enough to play 3B everyday.

 

 

For our purposes, pythagorean wins mean more than their actual record.

 

Soriano is not very good and Garza was here for 10 starts.

 

Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

 

Of course, that's the end goal. So let me ask you this...why do you think the Cubs have under performed their pythagorean win record? Is it luck, is it the result of a bad bullpen, or is it something else in your opinion?

 

I really don't have an answer except that the bullpen would obviously be at least part of the problem.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Right now they are on a pace to win 74 games (with Garza and Soriano), so a below 70 win season is very likely. I would expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo, but there's a very real possibility that players like Schierholtz, Valbuena, and Wood might be less productive. Obviously it depends on the FAs signed (in your scenario) and hoping that Olt is productive enough to play 3B everyday.

 

 

For our purposes, pythagorean wins mean more than their actual record.

 

Soriano is not very good and Garza was here for 10 starts.

 

Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

 

Of course, that's the end goal. So let me ask you this...why do you think the Cubs have under performed their pythagorean win record? Is it luck, is it the result of a bad bullpen, or is it something else in your opinion?

 

I really don't have an answer except that the bullpen would obviously be at least part of the problem.

 

That's reasonable. But if that's the answer, then addressing that part of the team should produce more results from normal. Let me explain.

 

Right now, they are projected to win 78 using the Pythagorean method and on pace for 73 actually. So let's say a bad bullpen accounts for half that difference. 2.5 wins lost because of having a bad record in close games due to the bullpen.

 

But the Cubs have an entire offseason to address that bullpen. Let's say they add relievers that would normally add 3 wins combined to the team. In this case though, they wouldn't add 3 wins, they would add 5.5. The 3 wins would come from them continuing to make the Cubs run differential better. Then 2.5 more would come from them making their record in close games match up better with their overall record.

 

That's why the Pythagorean record still has value when projecting a new season. It allows you to see where your overall talent level might be better or worse than your record. Then you have time to improve the part of your roster that might be causing your actual record to under perform (or just have a better idea of your projection if you believe the difference is mostly luck). It's not the only thing you should look at, but it is a very useful tool.

[Backtobanks]

 

That's reasonable. But if that's the answer, then addressing that part of the team should produce more results from normal. Let me explain.

 

Right now, they are projected to win 78 using the Pythagorean method and on pace for 73 actually. So let's say a bad bullpen accounts for half that difference. 2.5 wins lost because of having a bad record in close games due to the bullpen.

 

But the Cubs have an entire offseason to address that bullpen. Let's say they add relievers that would normally add 3 wins combined to the team. In this case though, they wouldn't add 3 wins, they would add 5.5. The 3 wins would come from them continuing to make the Cubs run differential better. Then 2.5 more would come from them making their record in close games match up better with their overall record.

 

That's why the Pythagorean record still has value when projecting a new season. It allows you to see where your overall talent level might be better or worse than your record. Then you have time to improve the part of your roster that might be causing your actual record to under perform (or just have a better idea of your projection if you believe the difference is mostly luck). It's not the only thing you should look at, but it is a very useful tool.

 

I agree that the Pythagorean method should be looked at to try to analyze the weaknesses of your team, but it shouldn't be used to placate fans into believing that the team is far better than what it shows on the field. Also, it's going to be hard to project next year's team based on this year's numbers because of the large turnover of players.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

 

That's reasonable. But if that's the answer, then addressing that part of the team should produce more results from normal. Let me explain.

 

Right now, they are projected to win 78 using the Pythagorean method and on pace for 73 actually. So let's say a bad bullpen accounts for half that difference. 2.5 wins lost because of having a bad record in close games due to the bullpen.

 

But the Cubs have an entire offseason to address that bullpen. Let's say they add relievers that would normally add 3 wins combined to the team. In this case though, they wouldn't add 3 wins, they would add 5.5. The 3 wins would come from them continuing to make the Cubs run differential better. Then 2.5 more would come from them making their record in close games match up better with their overall record.

 

That's why the Pythagorean record still has value when projecting a new season. It allows you to see where your overall talent level might be better or worse than your record. Then you have time to improve the part of your roster that might be causing your actual record to under perform (or just have a better idea of your projection if you believe the difference is mostly luck). It's not the only thing you should look at, but it is a very useful tool.

 

I agree that the Pythagorean method should be looked at to try to analyze the weaknesses of your team, but it shouldn't be used to placate fans into believing that the team is far better than what it shows on the field. Also, it's going to be hard to project next year's team based on this year's numbers because of the large turnover of players.

 

No, it really won't. It's not like they'll be replacing this year's players with a bunch of unknowns that we have zero information about and no ability to project what we can expect them to contribute.

[Guest]

I agree that the Pythagorean method should be looked at to try to analyze the weaknesses of your team, but it shouldn't be used to placate fans into believing that the team is far better than what it shows on the field.

 

This is kind of backwards. It's pretty good at telling you whether a team is overperforming or underperforming in terms of W/L... it's not all that effective on its own at telling you anything about what the weaknesses of your team are.

[Guest]

how could run differential tell you anything about a team's weaknesses?

[Guest]

Also, it's going to be hard to project next year's team based on this year's numbers because of the large turnover of players.

 

Everyone bookmark this for when "I just don't see how they can improve from X wins to Y wins", complete with suggestions of year over year regression, inevitably comes back.

[Guest]

you know you suck when even TT has a problem with you

 

 

what's next, raisin giving him crap?

[treebird]

you know you suck when even TT has a problem with you

 

 

what's next, raisin giving him crap?

 

jonmdavis returns just to post an expletive-laden tirade about how much he hates b2b's face

[dcvalpo]

you know you suck when even TT has a problem with you

 

 

what's next, raisin giving him crap?

 

jonmdavis returns just to post an expletive-laden tirade about how much he hates b2b's face

 

Jon ain't comin' back from where he went, friend.

[imb]

you know you suck when even TT has a problem with you

 

 

what's next, raisin giving him crap?

 

jonmdavis returns just to post an expletive-laden tirade about how much he hates b2b's face

 

Jon ain't comin' back from where he went, friend.

 

there's always parole

[treebird]

you know you suck when even TT has a problem with you

 

 

what's next, raisin giving him crap?

 

jonmdavis returns just to post an expletive-laden tirade about how much he hates b2b's face

 

Jon ain't comin' back from where he went, friend.

 

there's always parole

 

three weeks from now we notice a post in site suggestions that reads "JON WAS HERE"

[KaiserCesar]

To me, Valbuena and Barney would be really good IF bench guys once two of Olt, Alcantara or Baez are ready to play the infield. Valbuena is good enough to be a starter at either 2B or 3B while the prospects develop, so I'm all for moving him over to 2B next year. However, once Barney and Valbuena get moved to the bench, are they sufficiently more valuable than other options such as Watkins or Vitters to justify paying their arb salaries?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

To me, Valbuena and Barney would be really good IF bench guys once two of Olt, Alcantara or Baez are ready to play the infield. Valbuena is good enough to be a starter at either 2B or 3B while the prospects develop, so I'm all for moving him over to 2B next year. However, once Barney and Valbuena get moved to the bench, are they sufficiently more valuable than other options such as Watkins or Vitters to justify paying their arb salaries?

 

Yes, but only because I'm not at all sold on Watkins or Vitters.

[Backtobanks]

To me, Valbuena and Barney would be really good IF bench guys once two of Olt, Alcantara or Baez are ready to play the infield. Valbuena is good enough to be a starter at either 2B or 3B while the prospects develop, so I'm all for moving him over to 2B next year. However, once Barney and Valbuena get moved to the bench, are they sufficiently more valuable than other options such as Watkins or Vitters to justify paying their arb salaries?

 

I don't know how valuable Barney would be on the bench. I would rather have a bench guy who could hit more than basically being a defensive replacement. Some team that is looking for a solid defensive IF might want him in a trade

[illiniguy]

To me, Valbuena and Barney would be really good IF bench guys once two of Olt, Alcantara or Baez are ready to play the infield. Valbuena is good enough to be a starter at either 2B or 3B while the prospects develop, so I'm all for moving him over to 2B next year. However, once Barney and Valbuena get moved to the bench, are they sufficiently more valuable than other options such as Watkins or Vitters to justify paying their arb salaries?

 

I don't know how valuable Barney would be on the bench. I would rather have a bench guy who could hit more than basically being a defensive replacement. Some team that is looking for a solid defensive IF might want him in a trade

We've been thinking that for a couple of years, I don't think that this is really the case. At least most teams would rather use their own defensive first guy instead of giving away assets to get Darwin.

[Backtobanks]

I agree that the Pythagorean method should be looked at to try to analyze the weaknesses of your team, but it shouldn't be used to placate fans into believing that the team is far better than what it shows on the field.

 

This is kind of backwards. It's pretty good at telling you whether a team is overperforming or underperforming in terms of W/L... it's not all that effective on its own at telling you anything about what the weaknesses of your team are.

 

how could run differential tell you anything about a team's weaknesses?

 

The run differential compared to where your team ranks in runs scored and/or runs allowed would allow you to see which area (offense or pitching) needs improvement.

[hawkeyecub]

Man do I love Nate Schierholtz.