8/17 Other Games

[ARCubsFan]

They haven't made the playoffs in 7 years and nobody had them making the playoffs at this stage of their rebuilding project. Just making the playoffs is a total win for this team for where they're at. And yes, the playoffs are a crapshoot so just making the playoffs gives you a chance at winning it all. Go look at the Royals and Giants last year.

 

 

The first two sentences are meaningless nonsense (this team is what it is today and the last 7 years mean absolutely nothing) and nobody is denying the last two.

Making the playoffs is more important than the division right now and their odds of missing the playoffs are much higher than their odds of winning the division. We get down to the last 2 weeks and the division lead is down to 5 games or less, then I'm all for it but let's build our playoff lead first.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

They haven't made the playoffs in 7 years and nobody had them making the playoffs at this stage of their rebuilding project. Just making the playoffs is a total win for this team for where they're at. And yes, the playoffs are a crapshoot so just making the playoffs gives you a chance at winning it all. Go look at the Royals and Giants last year.

 

 

The first two sentences are meaningless nonsense (this team is what it is today and the last 7 years mean absolutely nothing) and nobody is denying the last two.

 

Agree with this, mostly because seven years isn't really that long. If this were 1984 and they hadn't been there in decades, OK, making the playoffs is pretty big for the franchise.

[ARCubsFan]

They haven't made the playoffs in 7 years and nobody had them making the playoffs at this stage of their rebuilding project. Just making the playoffs is a total win for this team for where they're at. And yes, the playoffs are a crapshoot so just making the playoffs gives you a chance at winning it all. Go look at the Royals and Giants last year.

 

 

The first two sentences are meaningless nonsense (this team is what it is today and the last 7 years mean absolutely nothing) and nobody is denying the last two.

 

Agree with this, mostly because seven years isn't really that long. If this were 1984 and they hadn't been there in decades, OK, making the playoffs is pretty big for the franchise.

Oh I know it's not that long but we've endured 100 loss seasons and top 10 picks for the last 5 years. Making the playoffs is a huge accomplishment.

[ARCubsFan]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Guest]

David, I feel like that's not what you were saying the other day. You said you'd just basically pick a team out of a hat rather than trying to guess which one would win it all. But here, it seems like you are saying that the odds are not equal.

 

Not trying to put words in your mouth or misconstrue what you were saying, but felt that was what the convo was about.

 

That said, I agree with it. Winning the division would be way better than winning the wild card. But in just trying to make sure we get to the playoffs, I'm going with the wild card right now. Which means it's far more meaningful when the Giants lose. I'm willing to sacrifice the Cards being the one to beat them.

 

There's nothing to disagree or agree with. It's simple math. You might've missed it, but I acknowledged the disadvantage that the wild cards are at in the current system. viewtopic.php?p=3252465#p3252465

 

Once you're past that round, everyone's chances are roughly 1/8. A little more than that for the stronger teams and a little less for the weaker teams, but all the teams being pretty good means even the margin there isn't as much as you might want to think.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

David, I feel like that's not what you were saying the other day. You said you'd just basically pick a team out of a hat rather than trying to guess which one would win it all. But here, it seems like you are saying that the odds are not equal.

 

Not trying to put words in your mouth or misconstrue what you were saying, but felt that was what the convo was about.

 

That said, I agree with it. Winning the division would be way better than winning the wild card. But in just trying to make sure we get to the playoffs, I'm going with the wild card right now. Which means it's far more meaningful when the Giants lose. I'm willing to sacrifice the Cards being the one to beat them.

 

There's nothing to disagree or agree with. It's simple math. You might've missed it, but I acknowledged the disadvantage that the wild cards are at in the current system. http://northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3252465#p3252465

 

Once you're past that round, everyone's chances are roughly 1/8. A little more than that for the stronger teams and a little less for the weaker teams, but all the teams being pretty good means even the margin there isn't as much as you might want to think.

 

OK. I did miss that. Fair enough.

 

So, part of the playoffs are a crapshoot more than the entire thing. That appears to be accurate, right? And I'm asking sincerely for my own knowledge.

[Guest]

David, I feel like that's not what you were saying the other day. You said you'd just basically pick a team out of a hat rather than trying to guess which one would win it all. But here, it seems like you are saying that the odds are not equal.

 

Not trying to put words in your mouth or misconstrue what you were saying, but felt that was what the convo was about.

 

That said, I agree with it. Winning the division would be way better than winning the wild card. But in just trying to make sure we get to the playoffs, I'm going with the wild card right now. Which means it's far more meaningful when the Giants lose. I'm willing to sacrifice the Cards being the one to beat them.

 

There's nothing to disagree or agree with. It's simple math. You might've missed it, but I acknowledged the disadvantage that the wild cards are at in the current system. viewtopic.php?p=3252465#p3252465

 

Once you're past that round, everyone's chances are roughly 1/8. A little more than that for the stronger teams and a little less for the weaker teams, but all the teams being pretty good means even the margin there isn't as much as you might want to think.

 

OK. I did miss that. Fair enough.

 

So, part of the playoffs are a crapshoot more than the entire thing. That appears to be accurate, right? And I'm asking sincerely for my own knowledge.

 

The entire thing.

 

The new format just made it harder for the wild cards, that's all. It was a crap shoot before and it's still a crap shoot, except now there are two wild cards (per league) with a roughly 50/50 chance of being one of the 8 in the regular playoffs instead of just one that gets right in with the rest of the teams.

[ARCubsFan]

Well I think everyone here would rather win the division than be in the one game Wild Card fluke. That's not the point though. The point is, right now the Cubs have a better chance at missing the playoffs than winning the division.

[Guest]

go cards, easily

[Bryants Disco Ball]

David, I feel like that's not what you were saying the other day. You said you'd just basically pick a team out of a hat rather than trying to guess which one would win it all. But here, it seems like you are saying that the odds are not equal.

 

Not trying to put words in your mouth or misconstrue what you were saying, but felt that was what the convo was about.

 

That said, I agree with it. Winning the division would be way better than winning the wild card. But in just trying to make sure we get to the playoffs, I'm going with the wild card right now. Which means it's far more meaningful when the Giants lose. I'm willing to sacrifice the Cards being the one to beat them.

 

There's nothing to disagree or agree with. It's simple math. You might've missed it, but I acknowledged the disadvantage that the wild cards are at in the current system. http://northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3252465#p3252465

 

Once you're past that round, everyone's chances are roughly 1/8. A little more than that for the stronger teams and a little less for the weaker teams, but all the teams being pretty good means even the margin there isn't as much as you might want to think.

 

OK. I did miss that. Fair enough.

 

So, part of the playoffs are a crapshoot more than the entire thing. That appears to be accurate, right? And I'm asking sincerely for my own knowledge.

 

The entire thing.

 

The new format just made it harder for the wild cards, that's all. It was a crap shoot before and it's still a crap shoot, except now there are two wild cards (per league) with a roughly 50/50 chance of being one of the 8 in the regular playoffs instead of just one that gets right in with the rest of the teams.

 

One last thing and I promise I'm out. There have only been six wild card teams to win the World Series since the wild card first started in 1995. There were five wild card teams to win from 1994 to 2011, when each wild card didn't have to first play a 50-50 game. Doesn't the math suggest that, percentage-wise, it's tougher to win the World Series as a wild card even before the invention of the play-in game?

 

Now, I'm the worst person ever at math, so if I look like an idiot, I won't be surprised.

[TMan92]

Nice to see Cole lose. Question for you guys. Going to the Cubs Dodger games in LA this year. Do you think with a couple days off they set up their rotation to put Kershaw and Greinke against the Giants who they play after us. Right now we are lined up to face both of them.

 

Trying to guess what Mattingly will do is impossible.

 

Pretty interesting. The Dodgers have an off day on Thursday and next Monday. So as of right now, Kershaw is scheduled to pitch tomorrow and not again til next Tuesday. Greinke is schedule Sunday (yesterday), Sunday, and then Saturday. They are basically on a college rotation for the next couple weeks.

 

I could see them skipping Anderson or Wood and going Greinke on Saturday, Kershaw on Sunday. Which would put them game 1 and 2 of the Cubs series, instead of 2 and 3. Then Greinke would be good to go in the final game of the SF series.

 

It is odd to see that many days off in August. I wouldn't mind seeing both of them be switched around to face the Giants. Even though we beat both, any time we can avoid a Sale or Hamels type pitcher would be great in the stretch.

 

Also, not to upset with cards winning tonight. The Giants are like vampires. Need to stake them as soon as possible as I don't want them lingering in September.

 

That last series in Milwaukee has a Brant Brown "oh noooooo" play written all over it.

[Cubswin11]

According to ESPN we will face Kluber, Bumgarner, Kershaw and Greinke in a 7 game stretch starting with the Indians makeup game on Monday.

[mul21]

One last thing and I promise I'm out. There have only been six wild card teams to win the World Series since the wild card first started in 1995. There were five wild card teams to win from 1994 to 2011, when each wild card didn't have to first play a 50-50 game. Doesn't the math suggest that, percentage-wise, it's tougher to win the World Series as a wild card even before the invention of the play-in game?

 

Now, I'm the worst person ever at math, so if I look like an idiot, I won't be surprised.

 

1995 to 2011 is 17 seasons (no playoffs in 94 due to the strike). You say 5 wild card teams won, so that's 5/17 or 29%. Considering that the other 3 "seeds" only won 12 /17, I'd say no, it wasn't harder then to win as a wild card, which is one of the reasons they added the extra WC and the play in game, so the team with the best record actually got a real advantage for being the best team over 162 games.

[Guest]

One last thing and I promise I'm out. There have only been six wild card teams to win the World Series since the wild card first started in 1995. There were five wild card teams to win from 1994 to 2011, when each wild card didn't have to first play a 50-50 game. Doesn't the math suggest that, percentage-wise, it's tougher to win the World Series as a wild card even before the invention of the play-in game?

 

Now, I'm the worst person ever at math, so if I look like an idiot, I won't be surprised.

 

17 years (so 17 instances) just isn't close to being a large enough sample size to expect the outcomes to necessarily reflect the true odds.

 

but no, the math doesn't suggest that it's tougher to win the world series as a wild card (before the play in game came into play). the math says it's a slightly weighted crapshoot. that each team had roughly a 1/8 chance, whether they were a division winner or wild card.

[UMFan83]

According to ESPN we will face Kluber, Bumgarner, Kershaw and Greinke in a 7 game stretch starting with the Indians makeup game on Monday.

 

Bring it on

[Guest]

That last series in Milwaukee has a Brant Brown "oh noooooo" play written all over it.

 

oh come on

[Bryants Disco Ball]

One last thing and I promise I'm out. There have only been six wild card teams to win the World Series since the wild card first started in 1995. There were five wild card teams to win from 1994 to 2011, when each wild card didn't have to first play a 50-50 game. Doesn't the math suggest that, percentage-wise, it's tougher to win the World Series as a wild card even before the invention of the play-in game?

 

Now, I'm the worst person ever at math, so if I look like an idiot, I won't be surprised.

 

1995 to 2011 is 17 seasons (no playoffs in 94 due to the strike). You say 5 wild card teams won, so that's 5/17 or 29%. Considering that the other 3 "seeds" only won 12 /17, I'd say no, it wasn't harder then to win as a wild card, which is one of the reasons they added the extra WC and the play in game, so the team with the best record actually got a real advantage for being the best team over 162 games.

 

This is where I seriously am just dense. I look and see that Wild Card teams won less than 30 percent of the time and think that means wild card teams don't win as much. But I can see where I'm wrong. At least I think I can see. I suck at math and all things math.

 

But I am right when I say Carlos Gomez is not as good as a lot of people here think he is, which has nothing to do with anything.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

According to ESPN we will face Kluber, Bumgarner, Kershaw and Greinke in a 7 game stretch starting with the Indians makeup game on Monday.

 

Bring it on

 

Agreed. Those are the pitchers you have to face and beat to win a World Series. Might as well continue to prove you can do it now.

[Guest]

go cards, easily

 

more loser talk

 

worry about the giants when they're worth worrying about. for now, on with the cardinal killing.

 

given how much better it is to win the division than a wild card, some of you guys are really treating these two possibilities (the giants catching us and us catching the cardinals) disproportionately IMO. it's not some crazy no brainer where one (the giants winning these games or the cards winning) is wayyyyy better than the other (i'm only saying this because some are treating it as such).

 

if you're scared, tho, buy a dog (and root for the cardinals) because that's definitely the safer way to go

 

i'm not scared

Edited August 18, 2015 by David

[Guest]

One last thing and I promise I'm out. There have only been six wild card teams to win the World Series since the wild card first started in 1995. There were five wild card teams to win from 1994 to 2011, when each wild card didn't have to first play a 50-50 game. Doesn't the math suggest that, percentage-wise, it's tougher to win the World Series as a wild card even before the invention of the play-in game?

 

Now, I'm the worst person ever at math, so if I look like an idiot, I won't be surprised.

 

1995 to 2011 is 17 seasons (no playoffs in 94 due to the strike). You say 5 wild card teams won, so that's 5/17 or 29%. Considering that the other 3 "seeds" only won 12 /17, I'd say no, it wasn't harder then to win as a wild card, which is one of the reasons they added the extra WC and the play in game, so the team with the best record actually got a real advantage for being the best team over 162 games.

 

This is where I seriously am just dense. I look and see that Wild Card teams won less than 30 percent of the time and think that means wild card teams don't win as much. But I can see where I'm wrong. At least I think I can see. I suck at math and all things math.

 

But I am right when I say Carlos Gomez is not as good as a lot of people here think he is, which has nothing to do with anything.

 

wild card teams only made up 25% of the teams in the playoffs at that time (2/8 or 1/4) - so by winning 30% of the time they exceeded expectation by a bit over those 17 years

[Bryants Disco Ball]

go cards, easily

 

more loser talk

 

worry about the giants when they're worth worrying about. for now, on with the cardinal killing.

 

given how much better it is to win the division than a wild card, some of you guys are really treating these two possibilities (the giants catching us and us catching the cardinals) disproportionately IMO. it's not some obvious no brainer.

 

if you're scared, tho, buy a dog (and root for the cardinals) because that's definitely the safer way to go

 

i'm not scared

 

But the chances of the Cubs catching the Cardinals are lower than the Giants catching the Cubs, so I first concentrate on destroying the Giants. If along the way that happens to help us destroy the Cards -- and don't forget the Pirates as well -- cool. But first things first.

[Guest]

Currently the White Sox have higher total playoff odds than the Cubs odds of winning the division. I'll still hope the Cards lose in most cases, we do have two series with them to try and go 5-2 or 6-1 and make things interesting, but I'm not going to be remotely upset if the Giants lose either.

[TMan92]

Interesting read on the cardinals

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-st-louis-cardinals-cluster-luck/

[Guest]

something worth mentioning is that we don't just want to just finish ahead of the giants, we want to finish far enough ahead of them that we can set the rotation up for the wild card game and beyond.

[Guest]

go cards, easily

 

more loser talk

 

worry about the giants when they're worth worrying about. for now, on with the cardinal killing.

 

given how much better it is to win the division than a wild card, some of you guys are really treating these two possibilities (the giants catching us and us catching the cardinals) disproportionately IMO. it's not some crazy no brainer where one (the giants winning these games or the cards winning) is wayyyyy better than the other (i'm only saying this because some are treating it as such).

 

if you're scared, tho, buy a dog (and root for the cardinals) because that's definitely the safer way to go

 

i'm not scared

 

laying it on a little thick here