Random Cubs Musings

[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.

 

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.

 

or you could just look at how many runs they've scored and allowed

[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.

 

or you could just look at how many runs they've scored and allowed

 

Which kind of gets back to my initial point of looking at what's happening on the field instead of fantasy projections of what the team is doing.

[Guest]

what on earth

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

or you could just look at how many runs they've scored and allowed

 

Which kind of gets back to my initial point of looking at what's happening on the field instead of fantasy projections of what the team is doing.

 

Let me ask you this. If you saw Team 1 who won a game 9-2, but lost the other two games 2-1. Then you see another series where Team 2 won one game by a 2-1 score, but then lost the other two games 9-2. Their records are identical at 1-2. Do you think either team would be more likely to have a good season, or would they be equal since they have the same record?

[bhogg]

100 1-run losses per year would suck

[Backtobanks]

 

Let me ask you this. If you saw Team 1 who won a game 9-2, but lost the other two games 2-1. Then you see another series where Team 2 won one game by a 2-1 score, but then lost the other two games 9-2. Their records are identical at 1-2. Do you think either team would be more likely to have a good season, or would they be equal since they have the same record?

 

Which team is more likely to have a good season is getting into projections rather than actual records. At this point in your scenario, both teams are actually 1-2. Obviously using the pythagorean method, the first team is more likely to have a better season. While you're playing fast and loose with statistics, small sample sizes, and projections, do you really think that team 2 will only win 9% of the games (their pythagorean win ratio) during the whole season?

[CubColtPacer]

 

Let me ask you this. If you saw Team 1 who won a game 9-2, but lost the other two games 2-1. Then you see another series where Team 2 won one game by a 2-1 score, but then lost the other two games 9-2. Their records are identical at 1-2. Do you think either team would be more likely to have a good season, or would they be equal since they have the same record?

 

Which team is more likely to have a good season is getting into projections rather than actual records. At this point in your scenario, both teams are actually 1-2. Obviously using the pythagorean method, the first team is more likely to have a better season. While you're playing fast and loose with statistics, small sample sizes, and projections, do you really think that team 2 will only win 9% of the games (their pythagorean win ratio) during the whole season?

 

Of course not. Obviously in that tiny of a sample size, a million variables come into play. The margin of error is so high.

 

Even after 162, there is still margin of error on both Pythagorean records and actual records. Neither records a team's talent level accurately, although obviously the margin is much smaller than the microscopic 3 game sample.

 

I personally don't agree with throwing out either number when coming up with projections. The Pythagorean record is a very good allocation of the things that translate into wins (runs scored/runs allowed), but at the same time we don't know exactly why a team overperforms/underperforms it. A projection that ends up somewhere between the two records (before taking into account changes in the roster) would probably be the most reasonable approach IMO. Using actual records is a good starting point for a projection, but I don't know why that wouldn't be amended using the data we have that might suggest a team is better or worse than their record.

 

To get back to the beginning of the discussion, I'm not sure why you would want to throw out the Cubs Pythagorean record when making a projection for next year. It's an important data point even though it definitely still has error in it.

[Backtobanks]

 

Let me ask you this. If you saw Team 1 who won a game 9-2, but lost the other two games 2-1. Then you see another series where Team 2 won one game by a 2-1 score, but then lost the other two games 9-2. Their records are identical at 1-2. Do you think either team would be more likely to have a good season, or would they be equal since they have the same record?

 

Which team is more likely to have a good season is getting into projections rather than actual records. At this point in your scenario, both teams are actually 1-2. Obviously using the pythagorean method, the first team is more likely to have a better season. While you're playing fast and loose with statistics, small sample sizes, and projections, do you really think that team 2 will only win 9% of the games (their pythagorean win ratio) during the whole season?

 

Of course not. Obviously in that tiny of a sample size, a million variables come into play. The margin of error is so high.

 

Even after 162, there is still margin of error on both Pythagorean records and actual records. Neither records a team's talent level accurately, although obviously the margin is much smaller than the microscopic 3 game sample.

 

I personally don't agree with throwing out either number when coming up with projections. The Pythagorean record is a very good allocation of the things that translate into wins (runs scored/runs allowed), but at the same time we don't know exactly why a team overperforms/underperforms it. A projection that ends up somewhere between the two records (before taking into account changes in the roster) would probably be the most reasonable approach IMO. Using actual records is a good starting point for a projection, but I don't know why that wouldn't be amended using the data we have that might suggest a team is better or worse than their record.

 

To get back to the beginning of the discussion, I'm not sure why you would want to throw out the Cubs Pythagorean record when making a projection for next year. It's an important data point even though it definitely still has error in it.

 

While it's fun and interesting to project and predict what might happen, the bottom line is that the actual W-L record is all that counts. If you're a 70 win team that projects to be a 78 win team, you still have to gain 11 actual wins, not 3, to be .500. With the CBA, money being tight, and more teams locking up young stars, it's making it much harder to gain 8-10 wins in a season.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

While it's fun and interesting to project and predict what might happen, the bottom line is that the actual W-L record is all that counts. If you're a 70 win team that projects to be a 78 win team, you still have to gain 11 actual wins, not 3, to be .500. With the CBA, money being tight, and more teams locking up young stars, it's making it much harder to gain 8-10 wins in a season.

 

This is simply incorrect. No matter what "actually counts," studying peripherals such as pythagorean wins is more predictive of the future. Projecting based off of that will be more accurate than projecting off of actual wins.

[Backtobanks]

While it's fun and interesting to project and predict what might happen, the bottom line is that the actual W-L record is all that counts. If you're a 70 win team that projects to be a 78 win team, you still have to gain 11 actual wins, not 3, to be .500. With the CBA, money being tight, and more teams locking up young stars, it's making it much harder to gain 8-10 wins in a season.

 

This is simply incorrect. No matter what "actually counts," studying peripherals such as pythagorean wins is more predictive of the future. Projecting based off of that will be more accurate than projecting off of actual wins.

 

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about predicting, I'm talking about results. If next year's team is predicted (or projected) to win 81 games and they win 74, they're not a .500 team and won't be in the playoff hunt. Again it's fun and interesting to see or talk about the predictions or projections, but the only discussion would involve why they underperformed compared to the predictions.

[Careless]

Kevin Gregg back at 0.0 fWAR. That went bad in a hurry.

[bhogg]

6-4 west coast trip without your number 1 starter and cleanup hitter. Progress!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs are closer to a playoff spot than the Cardinals were on Aug 27, 2011.

[Guest]

While it's fun and interesting to project and predict what might happen, the bottom line is that the actual W-L record is all that counts. If you're a 70 win team that projects to be a 78 win team, you still have to gain 11 actual wins, not 3, to be .500. With the CBA, money being tight, and more teams locking up young stars, it's making it much harder to gain 8-10 wins in a season.

 

This is simply incorrect. No matter what "actually counts," studying peripherals such as pythagorean wins is more predictive of the future. Projecting based off of that will be more accurate than projecting off of actual wins.

 

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about predicting, I'm talking about results. If next year's team is predicted (or projected) to win 81 games and they win 74, they're not a .500 team and won't be in the playoff hunt. Again it's fun and interesting to see or talk about the predictions or projections, but the only discussion would involve why they underperformed compared to the predictions.

 

Ummm the conversation is about projecting how many games this team might win next year you loon

[TruffleShuffle]

So I am thinking about the Cubs' future, and am also stuck at the Brisbane airport on a [expletive] 6 hour layover because my connecting flight had to circle the [expletive] airport for 40 minutes before landing.

 

Ultimately, the goal of hiring this new regime was to put in place a system that would lead to sustained success. Obviously the Jim Hendry years had some successful years, but the farm system failed to develop enough impact players and the big club was left in pretty sorry shape - especially in terms of long term assets - by 2011.

 

The Rizzo trade was an enormous heist and gave the Cubs an impact player at a position that was pretty bereft of organizational talent - and they made this trade while avoiding the obvious move of handing a massive contract to Pujols or Fielder. Some of the mid tier players that were signed in 2012 did not work out, but there was better success this season. The farm system has quickly gone from poor to one of the best and deepest in baseball, without having to sell off major parts of the big club's future. There haven't been any flame outs of top prospects, although Brett Jackson stings. They have done well in trades and the 2013 draft to address the weakness in pitching. The trades have also brought in some quality arms that may patch up another organizational weakness (bullpen) in the next year or two.

 

On the business side of things - which I follow less - it seems like they're slowly moving toward fixing up Wrigley, building revenue streams and hopefully getting a much more favorable cable deal.

 

So in terms of building an organization that will experience sustained success, I think most of the building blocks are there. Hopefully two of Baez, Almora, Bryant and Soler can provide star level production, and another top of rotation pitcher is needed. I guess a lot of people are still pessimistic because the big club is mediocre, but I'll take some temporary pain over dumb contracts that weigh down the organization for years. To me, things have gone almost as well as I could have hoped, with a couple of exceptions (Darvish, Delgado)

[Guest]

While it's fun and interesting to project and predict what might happen, the bottom line is that the actual W-L record is all that counts. If you're a 70 win team that projects to be a 78 win team, you still have to gain 11 actual wins, not 3, to be .500. With the CBA, money being tight, and more teams locking up young stars, it's making it much harder to gain 8-10 wins in a season.

 

This is simply incorrect. No matter what "actually counts," studying peripherals such as pythagorean wins is more predictive of the future. Projecting based off of that will be more accurate than projecting off of actual wins.

 

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about predicting, I'm talking about results. If next year's team is predicted (or projected) to win 81 games and they win 74, they're not a .500 team and won't be in the playoff hunt. Again it's fun and interesting to see or talk about the predictions or projections, but the only discussion would involve why they underperformed compared to the predictions.

 

Ummm the conversation is about projecting how many games this team might win next year you loon

 

why do we care about 2014 at all? we're 47-55, that's all that matters. why worry about tomorrow? it's today.

[Banedon]

The Cubs are closer to a playoff spot than the Cardinals were on Aug 27, 2011.

 

I wonder what the odds were of the Cardinals making the playoffs on that date.

[Banedon]

Bruce Miles on the Score right now.

[KingCubsFan]

The Cubs are closer to a playoff spot than the Cardinals were on Aug 27, 2011.

If only we had Albert Pujols. Although we do have Junior Lake....

[Backtobanks]

While it's fun and interesting to project and predict what might happen, the bottom line is that the actual W-L record is all that counts. If you're a 70 win team that projects to be a 78 win team, you still have to gain 11 actual wins, not 3, to be .500. With the CBA, money being tight, and more teams locking up young stars, it's making it much harder to gain 8-10 wins in a season.

 

This is simply incorrect. No matter what "actually counts," studying peripherals such as pythagorean wins is more predictive of the future. Projecting based off of that will be more accurate than projecting off of actual wins.

 

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about predicting, I'm talking about results. If next year's team is predicted (or projected) to win 81 games and they win 74, they're not a .500 team and won't be in the playoff hunt. Again it's fun and interesting to see or talk about the predictions or projections, but the only discussion would involve why they underperformed compared to the predictions.

 

Ummm the conversation is about projecting how many games this team might win next year you loon

 

Maybe your conversation is about projecting how many games the Cubs will win next year, but I'm pointing out that the bottom line is what they actually win (in any year) is all that counts and to continually talk about a team's pythagorean record during a year doesn't mean much. After a cursory "the team is underperforming (or overperforming) compared to projections", what else is there to say? As for 2014, it's pretty hard to project when you don't even know who's going to be on the roster yet.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wait, do you think most of the roster won't be the same next year?

[mul21]

The Cubs are closer to a playoff spot than the Cardinals were on Aug 27, 2011.

 

I wonder what the odds were of the Cardinals making the playoffs on that date.

 

Probably not all that terrible since the division was so awful. So depressing.

[bukie]

The Cubs are closer to a playoff spot than the Cardinals were on Aug 27, 2011.

 

I wonder what the odds were of the Cardinals making the playoffs on that date.

 

Probably not all that terrible since the division was so awful. So depressing.

They won the wild card, and the Brewers won 96 games.

[Sammys Boombox]

The Cubs are closer to a playoff spot than the Cardinals were on Aug 27, 2011.

 

I wonder what the odds were of the Cardinals making the playoffs on that date.

 

Probably not all that terrible since the division was so awful. So depressing.

They won the wild card, and the Brewers won 96 games.

 

Coolstandings had them at 1.1%.

[Banedon]

The Cubs are closer to a playoff spot than the Cardinals were on Aug 27, 2011.

 

I wonder what the odds were of the Cardinals making the playoffs on that date.

 

Probably not all that terrible since the division was so awful. So depressing.

They won the wild card, and the Brewers won 96 games.

 

Coolstandings had them at 1.1%.

 

ESPN has the Cubs at 2.8% today, fwiw.