Random Cubs Musings

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

162 win pace last 4

[Sammy Sofa]

Get rid of the "&'s" and just have periods after each name.

 

& u don't get it

 

Don't care; my way looks more badass.

[SouthSideRyan]

Schwarber looks like The Thing.

 

Don't give Brett any ideas

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm more concerned about A New Era dropping something like "he hit that thing like he's swinging a huge stone [expletive]" out of nowhere.

[chuckywang]

Hendricks - 1.76

Arrieta - 2.53

Wada - 2.56

Hammel - 2.98

Samardzija - 2.83

 

Imagine a full season of that ....

[Banedon]

Hendricks - 1.76

Arrieta - 2.53

Wada - 2.56

Hammel - 2.98

Samardzija - 2.83

 

Imagine a full season of that ....

 

Screw pitching.

[Guest]

I'm more concerned about A New Era dropping something like "he hit that thing like he's swinging a huge stone [expletive]" out of nowhere.

hahahahahahahahahaha

[Guest]

Hendricks - 1.76

Arrieta - 2.53

Wada - 2.56

Hammel - 2.98

Samardzija - 2.83

 

Imagine a full season of that ....

 

i'd rather imagine addison russell in our farm system with those last two omitted

[SouthSideRyan]

Hendricks - 1.76

Arrieta - 2.53

Wada - 2.56

Hammel - 2.98

Samardzija - 2.83

 

Imagine a full season of that ....

 

i'd rather imagine addison russell in our farm system with those last two omitted

 

You'd rather a prospect than 2 full seasons of sub-3 ERA from starting pitchers?

[Guest]

Hendricks - 1.76

Arrieta - 2.53

Wada - 2.56

Hammel - 2.98

Samardzija - 2.83

 

Imagine a full season of that ....

 

i'd rather imagine addison russell in our farm system with those last two omitted

 

You'd rather a prospect than 2 full seasons of sub-3 ERA from starting pitchers?

 

he's implying that hammel would've continued what he was doing with the cubs... maybe but i'm more inclined to believe not given just how extremely god awful he has been.

 

and yes, even given that premise, i would rather have a top 2-3 prospect in the game than if you guaranteed me that those two starters continued what they were doing for another year and a half (especially given the assumption that those other 3 were also doing that well).

[sneakypower]

yeah, and just replace them with a full season of Jacob Turner's 2.08 ERA and Dallas Beeler's 3.27

[SouthSideRyan]

and yes, even given that premise, i would rather have a top 2-3 prospect in the game than if you guaranteed me that those two starters continued what they were doing for another year and a half

 

Dumb

[Banedon]

May flashback...point and laugh at David Haugh....

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-05/sports/ct-haugh-city-series-spt-0506-20140506_1_jose-abreu-chris-sale-white-sox

[SouthSideRyan]

Huh, didn't realize how far back the White Sox fell. We have the same record now.

[Guest]

yeah, and just replace them with a full season of Jacob Turner's 2.08 ERA and Dallas Beeler's 3.27

 

there we go

[Guest]

and yes, even given that premise, i would rather have a top 2-3 prospect in the game than if you guaranteed me that those two starters continued what they were doing for another year and a half

 

Dumb

 

nah

 

if we get to assume that jason hammel is going to put up a sub 3 ERA for another year and a half (plus samardzija doing what he was which is less ridiculous but still unlikely), i'll go ahead and project something resembling barry larkin numbers out of russell for all the years we control him

[Clem Fandango]

May flashback...point and laugh at David Haugh....

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-05/sports/ct-haugh-city-series-spt-0506-20140506_1_jose-abreu-chris-sale-white-sox

 

Rizzo has enjoyed an early renaissance of his own given the way he has improved against lefties, but while he has made strides, Abreu has made history. Only Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio drove in as many runs (32) in their first 29 games as Abreu.

 

Ted Williams was 20 and Joe DiMaggio was 21 when they debuted, not 27.

[Guest]

Not sure if anyone double checked his math this time, but Cameron has more 2015 optimism: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/next-year-really-might-be-the-year-cubs-fans-082714

 

And yet, that's what history shows. There are four teams, not including the current Cubs, that underperformed their expected winning percentage by a total of 100 points or more over two consecutive seasons since the start of 2002.

 

The 2004-2005 Tigers. They went 72-90 in 2004 and 71-91 in 2005, despite BaseRuns numbers that suggested they were roughly a .500 team in both years. In 2006, the Tigers went 95-67 and made it to the World Series.

 

The 2005-2006 Indians. While the Indians went 93-69 in 2005, they still managed to underperform their BaseRuns winning percentage by 47 points, and then they fell to 78-84 the next year despite an expected record of 89-73. The 2007 Indians went 96-66 and made it to the ALCS.

 

The 2009-2010 Nationals. The 2009 Nationals lost 103 games despite a BaseRuns record that indicated they were just bad instead of atrocious. And while they regressed up to their 2009 BaseRuns total the next year, they still underperformed their 2010 expected record by 38 points. In 2011, they jumped up to .500 ball by playing at their expected record, and they had the best winning percentage in baseball in 2012.

 

The 2009-2010 Diamondbacks. They lost 90+ games in both seasons, but their expected records suggested that they were not as terrible as their win-loss records suggested in either year. In 2011, they went 94-68 and won the NL West.

[SouthSideRyan]

and yes, even given that premise, i would rather have a top 2-3 prospect in the game than if you guaranteed me that those two starters continued what they were doing for another year and a half

 

Dumb

 

nah

 

if we get to assume that jason hammel is going to put up a sub 3 ERA for another year and a half (plus samardzija doing what he was which is less ridiculous but still unlikely), i'll go ahead and project something resembling barry larkin numbers out of russell for all the years we control him

 

That wasn't the exercise.

[Guest]

it's MY exercise

[SouthSideRyan]

Dave Cameron suggested the Giants move Lincecum to closer because his numbers are better with the bases empty.

[Guest]

Neat.

[Guest]

is it possible that that's actually a thing and some guys are just really bad at pitching from the stretch? is this possibly part of jaxon's problem?

[SouthSideRyan]

Not sure if anyone double checked his math this time, but Cameron has more 2015 optimism: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/next-year-really-might-be-the-year-cubs-fans-082714

 

And yet, that's what history shows. There are four teams, not including the current Cubs, that underperformed their expected winning percentage by a total of 100 points or more over two consecutive seasons since the start of 2002.

 

The 2004-2005 Tigers. They went 72-90 in 2004 and 71-91 in 2005, despite BaseRuns numbers that suggested they were roughly a .500 team in both years. In 2006, the Tigers went 95-67 and made it to the World Series.

 

The 2005-2006 Indians. While the Indians went 93-69 in 2005, they still managed to underperform their BaseRuns winning percentage by 47 points, and then they fell to 78-84 the next year despite an expected record of 89-73. The 2007 Indians went 96-66 and made it to the ALCS.

 

The 2009-2010 Nationals. The 2009 Nationals lost 103 games despite a BaseRuns record that indicated they were just bad instead of atrocious. And while they regressed up to their 2009 BaseRuns total the next year, they still underperformed their 2010 expected record by 38 points. In 2011, they jumped up to .500 ball by playing at their expected record, and they had the best winning percentage in baseball in 2012.

 

The 2009-2010 Diamondbacks. They lost 90+ games in both seasons, but their expected records suggested that they were not as terrible as their win-loss records suggested in either year. In 2011, they went 94-68 and won the NL West.

 

Is Baseruns proprietary? I see the link to this year's numbers, but can't find anything further on previous standings in my admittedly brief search. I'd like to see more to what he's saying rather than here are 11 teams that are in the same arbitrary range of underperformance and how they've done. Cameron has more than lost the benefit of the doubt from me when it comes to data manipulation.

[Guest]

Not sure if anyone double checked his math this time, but Cameron has more 2015 optimism: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/next-year-really-might-be-the-year-cubs-fans-082714

 

And yet, that's what history shows. There are four teams, not including the current Cubs, that underperformed their expected winning percentage by a total of 100 points or more over two consecutive seasons since the start of 2002.

 

The 2004-2005 Tigers. They went 72-90 in 2004 and 71-91 in 2005, despite BaseRuns numbers that suggested they were roughly a .500 team in both years. In 2006, the Tigers went 95-67 and made it to the World Series.

 

The 2005-2006 Indians. While the Indians went 93-69 in 2005, they still managed to underperform their BaseRuns winning percentage by 47 points, and then they fell to 78-84 the next year despite an expected record of 89-73. The 2007 Indians went 96-66 and made it to the ALCS.

 

The 2009-2010 Nationals. The 2009 Nationals lost 103 games despite a BaseRuns record that indicated they were just bad instead of atrocious. And while they regressed up to their 2009 BaseRuns total the next year, they still underperformed their 2010 expected record by 38 points. In 2011, they jumped up to .500 ball by playing at their expected record, and they had the best winning percentage in baseball in 2012.

 

The 2009-2010 Diamondbacks. They lost 90+ games in both seasons, but their expected records suggested that they were not as terrible as their win-loss records suggested in either year. In 2011, they went 94-68 and won the NL West.

 

Is Baseruns proprietary? I see the link to this year's numbers, but can't find anything further on previous standings in my admittedly brief search. I'd like to see more to what he's saying rather than here are 11 teams that are in the same arbitrary range of underperformance and how they've done. Cameron has more than lost the benefit of the doubt from me when it comes to data manipulation.

 

I believe it is proprietary.