Time to give props to David Eckstein!

[wolf stansson]

Burnitz, Walker, Barrett, ARam, and a healthy Nomar are better.

[Magnetic Curses]

wow, wizard, that's quite a schpiel, there.

 

the cards are good, i'll admit. but that's quite delusional.

[K-Town]

Burnitz, Walker, Barrett, ARam, and a healthy Nomar are better.

 

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards, and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols).

 

So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions? And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic.

[TruffleShuffle]

Burnitz, Walker, Barrett, ARam, and a healthy Nomar are better.

 

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards, and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols).

 

So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions? And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic.

 

Edmonds is 8000 times better than Patterson, and Sanders is a lot better than whoever the Cubs have in LF. Plus Nomar hasn't been healthy, so when you compare the SS the Cubs have had in there most of the year to Eckstein, the Cards have obviously gotten more production out of that position.

[goonys evil twin]

a healthy Nomar are better.

 

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards,

and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols).

 

So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions?

And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic.

 

when you compare the SS the Cubs have had in there most of the year to Eckstein,

the Cards have obviously gotten more production out of that position.

FYI

Team production from SS position:

Cards - .290 .363 .388

Cubs - .276 .312 .375

[dalgreen]

The Cardinals have been better than the Cubs, overall. One thing that few Cardinal fans want to point out is how much easier it is to win when your starting rotation and bullpen can remain intact for a full season. Even with a healthy Rolen and Walker, had you missed Carpenter and/or Mulder for an extended period of time you wouldn't have clinched the division last night -- it might have waited to next week or the week after or not at all, but it definitely helps to have a healthy starting rotation and bullpen. And when you speak of having healthy pitchers that's where luck does play a part.

[Magnetic Curses]

Burnitz, Walker, Barrett, ARam, and a healthy Nomar are better.

 

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards, and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols).

 

So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions? And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic.

 

isn't wolf a cards fan?

[K-Town]

The Cardinals have been better than the Cubs, overall. One thing that few Cardinal fans want to point out is how much easier it is to win when your starting rotation and bullpen can remain intact for a full season. Even with a healthy Rolen and Walker, had you missed Carpenter and/or Mulder for an extended period of time you wouldn't have clinched the division last night -- it might have waited to next week or the week after or not at all, but it definitely helps to have a healthy starting rotation and bullpen. And when you speak of having healthy pitchers that's where luck does play a part.

 

I think that the Cardinals would have been pretty confident with Anthony Reyes stepping in, if the rotation needed help. My guess is that the Cards would have hardly missed a beat.

 

Losing Prior didn't hurt the Cubs. Rusch was outstanding in Prior's absence.

 

Losing Wood may have hurt the Cubs a little. The Cubs shouldn't have been caught by surprise, and should have had an adequate replacement at AAA. They didn't.

 

The Cubs' best starter has been healthy all year. Their second best starter missed a few starts, but Rusch made sure it didn't hurt the Cubs, so that wasn't a factor.

 

The Cards have also had injuries to their bullpen (Izzy, early in the year, plus Lincoln, plus Eldred). The difference is that the Cards have had very solid replacement players (Thompson, Reyes, etc.).

[K-Town]

Burnitz, Walker, Barrett, ARam, and a healthy Nomar are better.

 

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards, and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols).

 

So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions? And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic.

 

isn't wolf a cards fan?

 

I don't know. His logic is flawed, regardless of who he's a fan of.

[Magnetic Curses]

Burnitz, Walker, Barrett, ARam, and a healthy Nomar are better.

 

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards, and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols).

 

So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions? And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic.

 

isn't wolf a cards fan?

 

I don't know. His logic is flawed, regardless of who he's a fan of.

 

i'd take burnitz over taguchi, barrett over molina, and a healthy nomar over eckstein. i'd also take walker over grudz (he's better in every offensive category of significance).

 

aram and rolen will probably be a wash from here on out.

 

i'd take pujols over lee, edmonds over anyone in the national league, and larry walker over whatever there is that's left.

 

the fact is, the cubs have a better OPS than the cards, despiet the fact that the cards have scored 80 more runs is a testimony to either the .012 OBP advantage (and a better hitting philosophy) that they have over the cubs, or luck.

[treebird]

Burnitz, Walker, Barrett, ARam, and a healthy Nomar are better.

 

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards, and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols).

 

So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions? And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic.

 

isn't wolf a cards fan?

 

I don't know. His logic is flawed, regardless of who he's a fan of.

 

i'd take burnitz over taguchi, barrett over molina, and a healthy nomar over eckstein. i'd also take walker over grudz (he's better in every offensive category of significance).

 

aram and rolen will probably be a wash from here on out.

 

i'd take pujols over lee, edmonds over anyone in the national league, and larry walker over whatever there is that's left.

 

the fact is, the cubs have a better OPS than the cards, despiet the fact that the cards have scored 80 more runs is a testimony to either the .012 OBP advantage (and a better hitting philosophy) that they have over the cubs, or luck.

 

bp third order adjusted standings

 

CARDS 85-63 677 runs scored, 579 runs allowed

 

CUBS 79-68 688 runs scored, 639 runs allowed

 

the cards are the best team in the division, but they've been real, real lucky too. they're 9.5 games better than projected (the white sox are the only team luckier, with 9.8, and that number has been dropping for some time now). the cubs are 6.5 games worse than projected, which is third most unlucky, behind only the mets (-9.5) and rangers (-8.2).

[Magnetic Curses]

that's messed up, tree.

 

wasn't it pretty similar last year as well?

[treebird]

that's messed up, tree.

 

wasn't it pretty similar last year as well?

 

i cant seem to get the adjusted standings for last year to come up, but if i remember correctly, yes.

[indifferent]

Burnitz, Walker, Barrett, ARam, and a healthy Nomar are better.

 

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards, and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols).

 

So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions? And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic.

 

isn't wolf a cards fan?

 

I don't know. His logic is flawed, regardless of who he's a fan of.

 

i'd take burnitz over taguchi, barrett over molina, and a healthy nomar over eckstein. i'd also take walker over grudz (he's better in every offensive category of significance).

 

aram and rolen will probably be a wash from here on out.

 

i'd take pujols over lee, edmonds over anyone in the national league, and larry walker over whatever there is that's left.

 

the fact is, the cubs have a better OPS than the cards, despiet the fact that the cards have scored 80 more runs is a testimony to either the .012 OBP advantage (and a better hitting philosophy) that they have over the cubs, or luck.

 

bp third order adjusted standings

 

CARDS 85-63 677 runs scored, 579 runs allowed

 

CUBS 79-68 688 runs scored, 639 runs allowed

 

the cards are the best team in the division, but they've been real, real lucky too. they're 9.5 games better than projected (the white sox are the only team luckier, with 9.8, and that number has been dropping for some time now). the cubs are 6.5 games worse than projected, which is third most unlucky, behind only the mets (-9.5) and rangers (-8.2).

 

As you'd expect from a team with the most wins in the NL. Where's Atlanta on the projected wins/losses? The way I see it, if the Cards performed as expected, they'd have Atlanta's record.

[treebird]

As you'd expect from a team with the most wins in the NL. Where's Atlanta on the projected wins/losses? The way I see it, if the Cards performed as expected, they'd have Atlanta's record.

 

according to third order wins, the braves should be 78-69 and in third place. they are outpeforming their expected record by 6 games.

 

i dont know what kind of argument you were trying to make, so i have no idea whether this helps or hurts it.

 

EDITED because even though i dont use capital letters, i still don't like to have unnecessary commas.

[K-Town]

As you'd expect from a team with the most wins in the NL. Where's Atlanta on the projected wins/losses? The way I see it, if the Cards performed as expected, they'd have Atlanta's record.

 

according to third order wins, the braves should be 78-69 and in third place. they are outpeforming their expected record by 6 games.

 

i dont know what kind of argument you were trying to make, so i have no idea whether this helps or hurts it.

 

EDITED because even though i dont use capital letters, i still don't like to have unnecessary commas.

 

So what you're saying is that virtually none of the teams are performing according to their "expected wins".

 

Wouldn't that make the "expected wins" system somewhat flawed?

[reggiemiller rules]

Expected wins is one of the dumbest stats I have ever heard of, how can you say how many games a team should win by runs scored and runs given up. A team could win a bunch of close games and lose a ton of blowouts and their expected wins would be nowhere near what their actual record is because of a few lopsided loses.

[treebird]

Expected wins is one of the dumbest stats I have ever heard of, how can you say how many games a team should win by runs scored and runs given up. A team could win a bunch of close games and lose a ton of blowouts and their expected wins would be nowhere near what their actual record is because of a few lopsided loses.

 

wow this argument has never been made before ill bet you were the first to think of it

 

also i think the people who came up with it just pulled it out of their collective butt and didn't test it at all to see if there was any truth to it in fact it was probably some cub fan who secretly knew about the cardinals innate ability to occasionally get blown out but win close games and he wanted to make his fellow cub fans feel better

[reggiemiller rules]

Expected wins is one of the dumbest stats I have ever heard of, how can you say how many games a team should win by runs scored and runs given up. A team could win a bunch of close games and lose a ton of blowouts and their expected wins would be nowhere near what their actual record is because of a few lopsided loses.

 

wow this argument has never been made before ill bet you were the first to think of it

 

also i think the people who came up with it just pulled it out of their collective butt and didn't test it at all to see if there was any truth to it in fact it was probably some cub fan who secretly knew about the cardinals innate ability to occasionally get blown out but win close games and he wanted to make his fellow cub fans feel better

 

I dont care if they tried it out or not it seems like a dumb stat to me. Sometimes stats do like and dont show stuff that is actually going on and this seems like one of those dumb stats that have no significent value. Did you ever think that the teams like the CArdinals and the Braves have better records then what they should because they have good managers who know how to win games. While a team like the cubs have a bad game manager that loses games. I dont see that taken into consideration anywhere in that formula.

[treebird]

Expected wins is one of the dumbest stats I have ever heard of, how can you say how many games a team should win by runs scored and runs given up. A team could win a bunch of close games and lose a ton of blowouts and their expected wins would be nowhere near what their actual record is because of a few lopsided loses.

 

wow this argument has never been made before ill bet you were the first to think of it

 

also i think the people who came up with it just pulled it out of their collective butt and didn't test it at all to see if there was any truth to it in fact it was probably some cub fan who secretly knew about the cardinals innate ability to occasionally get blown out but win close games and he wanted to make his fellow cub fans feel better

 

I dont care if they tried it out or not it seems like a dumb stat to me. Sometimes stats do like and dont show stuff that is actually going on and this seems like one of those dumb stats that have no significent value. Did you ever think that the teams like the CArdinals and the Braves have better records then what they should because they have good managers who know how to win games. While a team like the cubs have a bad game manager that loses games. I dont see that taken into consideration anywhere in that formula.

 

"he knows how to win ball games" is one of those throwaway arguments that people use when they run out of better ideas.

[reggiemiller rules]

Ok if certain managers dont know how to win games, then why does everyone on this board complain about Dusty. Apperntly according to your statement the manager cant win games so Dusty is fine right?

 

Of course there are some managers that can win games and im saying I believe that I think that is the difference in those so called expected wins to the amount of actual wins the braves and the cardinals have.

[treebird]

Ok if certain managers dont know how to win games, then why does everyone on this board complain about Dusty. Apperntly according to your statement the manager cant win games so Dusty is fine right?

 

Of course there are some managers that can win games and im saying I believe that I think that is the difference in those so called expected wins to the amount of actual wins the braves and the cardinals have.

 

dusty does things like play bad players and make them bat at the beginning of the lineup. this helps the cubs lose, because it costs them runs. since it costs them runs, it is reflected in stats like this.

[reggiemiller rules]

Ok if certain managers dont know how to win games, then why does everyone on this board complain about Dusty. Apperntly according to your statement the manager cant win games so Dusty is fine right?

 

Of course there are some managers that can win games and im saying I believe that I think that is the difference in those so called expected wins to the amount of actual wins the braves and the cardinals have.

 

dusty does things like play bad players and make them bat at the beginning of the lineup. this helps the cubs lose, because it costs them runs. since it costs them runs, it is reflected in stats like this.

 

Yes but you could say that managers like Larussa get guys in late in the game in the right spots and wins them a number of those games. That is a manager helping his team win the game. You say i use the manger knows how to win as because i dont have any other arguments.

 

Well whet is your facts that expected wins is a viable stat?

I see it as nothing more then some stat nerd came up with but it has nothing to do with actual baseball. Its a formula taht says how many games a team should win based on run differential but dosent take into consideration a lot of other details that are part of the game of baseball.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Ok if certain managers dont know how to win games, then why does everyone on this board complain about Dusty. Apperntly according to your statement the manager cant win games so Dusty is fine right?

 

Of course there are some managers that can win games and im saying I believe that I think that is the difference in those so called expected wins to the amount of actual wins the braves and the cardinals have.

 

dusty does things like play bad players and make them bat at the beginning of the lineup. this helps the cubs lose, because it costs them runs. since it costs them runs, it is reflected in stats like this.

 

Yes but you could say that managers like Larussa get guys in late in the game in the right spots and wins them a number of those games. That is a manager helping his team win the game. You say i use the manger knows how to win as because i dont have any other arguments.

 

Well whet is your facts that expected wins is a viable stat?

I see it as nothing more then some stat nerd came up with but it has nothing to do with actual baseball. Its a formula taht says how many games a team should win based on run differential but dosent take into consideration a lot of other details that are part of the game of baseball.

 

All a manager can do is put his team in the right situation. He really can't help the team, but he most certainly can hurt it.

[reggiemiller rules]

Ok if certain managers dont know how to win games, then why does everyone on this board complain about Dusty. Apperntly according to your statement the manager cant win games so Dusty is fine right?

 

Of course there are some managers that can win games and im saying I believe that I think that is the difference in those so called expected wins to the amount of actual wins the braves and the cardinals have.

 

dusty does things like play bad players and make them bat at the beginning of the lineup. this helps the cubs lose, because it costs them runs. since it costs them runs, it is reflected in stats like this.

 

Yes but you could say that managers like Larussa get guys in late in the game in the right spots and wins them a number of those games. That is a manager helping his team win the game. You say i use the manger knows how to win as because i dont have any other arguments.

 

Well whet is your facts that expected wins is a viable stat?

I see it as nothing more then some stat nerd came up with but it has nothing to do with actual baseball. Its a formula taht says how many games a team should win based on run differential but dosent take into consideration a lot of other details that are part of the game of baseball.

 

All a manager can do is put his team in the right situation. He really can't help the team, but he most certainly can hurt it.

 

I agree that it comes down to the players performing, but a manger putting his team in the best situation most of the times defintley helps them win games.