CubinNY

[Russian accent]We must burry them. [/Russian accent]

Done

Does anyone really like the soul patch? I mean does Davis look in the mirror in the morning and say, "damn, that's a good look for me." It looks like dried chew spit.

Me too Dave, me too.

yummy?

are they doing a system evaluation or something? So, if I read that right, Tennessee is in with a win. I think it is mostly a coincidence. Bialas was with us in Wisconsin. With the Cubs on the road its an easy drive down for Hughes and Fleita to see all the new guys (Barney, JOhnson, Russell, Hempy, Wright, Smith, Siegfried) How frequently are they there out of curiosity? I know it's a lot of travel, but I couldn't imagine a better job.

I'd settle for Derrek Lee circa 2005. http://www.tedwilliams.com/_data/images/1941s/title3.jpg a walk per game and only 27 (!!) strikeouts Sweet Jesus, he only struck out 27 times at that point?!? What the hell was up with him that year? Doesn't he average like 3 times that many strikeouts otherwise? After he returned from WWII, he never struck out even 50 times in a season. His career high was 64, the only time he was ever 55 or higher. Wow, I really thought Williams struck out around 60-70 times a season. I have no idea why. The fracking dude had X-Ray vision. What do you expect?

That's great, hahahaha :D Bobby Cox does not mess around. To me, he is the best manager in baseball and it isn't even close.

Becuase they have a lot of real good pitchers in the league. Said another way, JS doing well in AA is a real good sign. Some players insist the biggest jump in baseball is from A to AA.

isn't outperforming the expected record based on runs scored/allowed pretty close to the definition of luck? usually when that term is thrown about around here it is to summarize phenomena that can't be proven through various statistical methods. so based on your assertion that it is not luck, does the inverse apply? is there any explanation for this phenomena besides luck? the Cards in the standings posted above are already outside the measurement error. if you consider the rate that all three teams are going, the Cubs and Cards will both be well outside of the measurement error upon completing 162 games, the Brewers on the cusp. edit - I don't think I saw there was a second page of posts before writing this, but I'm still not clear on what you were saying here. Lets say a team over-preforms and that over-preformance is far beyond measurement error. From the standpoint of science, one could to say, "the team over-prefermed the PR and I don't know why. It may be due to luck or it may be due some variable that PM hasn't accounted for." I would think the closer the team is to the measurement error (+/-4) the more likely the results are to luck. Be that as it may, enough games have been played that I suspect the Cardinals, the Cubs, and Brewers will finsih pretty close to their PR. It makes me optimisitic about the Cubs chances.

I'm as numbers oriented as anyone. Heck I'm a scientist. That's why qoutes like the below drive me up the freaking wall. No scientist worth his salt would make such a statement. There is measurement error in any model. And variation is not the same as luck. One does not call everything that cannot be explained by a model luck. I'm glad that the author took the time to invistigate when and why the model can breakdown. The point is to see how well a model fits reality, not the other way around. Aren't we arguing semantics here? Some people would call variation "luck" others would not. Some might, I wouldn't unless I could rule out all other variables (like this article has done). Either way, PM is a pretty accurate molar model of Ws and Ls. It breaksdown at the local level of analysis (game by game).

I'm as numbers oriented as anyone. Heck I'm a scientist. That's why qoutes like the below drive me up the freaking wall. No scientist worth his salt would make such a statement. There is measurement error in any model. And variation is not the same as luck. One does not call everything that cannot be explained by a model luck. I'm glad that the author took the time to invistigate when and why the model can breakdown. The point is to see how well a model fits reality, not the other way around.

If he didn't have part of a finger missing on his throwing hand he probably would have been DFA a long time ago.

That would be genius! I'll lay odds he's the PTBNL.

Is this game going to be on ESPN or ESPN2 or even the Ocho?

I didn't even know SD D him FA.

I guess that's good news for the Cubs unless the Brewers score in double digits for a few games.

Do they run out for Lou? Becuase that is an excuse too unless one believes in his infalibility. It is down right stupid, yes stupi .to look at Murton's situation and form the opion that "excuses start to run out". I don't feel like rehashing the details but sparing playing time is about the worst way to judge a player. Especially a palyer who has shown good production given regular playing time at every level he's played. Allright, since I'm stupid I guess I shouldn't respond. What role does Murton himself play? It is not all Lou's fault that he hasn't produced, that is what is stupid. He hasn't produced, playing time is possibly part of it, but not the whole reason. It's real hard to produce when your ass is on the bench. Or when this AB determines whether you get another AB. The manager's job is to put his players in the best position to succeed. Does Murton have to go 2 for 4 every time he plays? When he's got consistent playing time he's produced. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. I just have a problem with the argument that none of this is Murton's fault, just Lou's/Hendry/whoever. Yeah, you do have to produce when given the chance, most people have this requirement on their job, not just baseball. I don't think anyone has made that argument. However, that doesn't mean that Lou cannot be criticized for his use of Murton. .500 BA is a pretty high bar. I still think Lou is pissed about Murton's comments to the media just before then sent him down.

Do they run out for Lou? Becuase that is an excuse too unless one believes in his infalibility. It is down right stupid, yes stupi .to look at Murton's situation and form the opion that "excuses start to run out". I don't feel like rehashing the details but sparing playing time is about the worst way to judge a player. Especially a palyer who has shown good production given regular playing time at every level he's played. If you are going to call someone or their opinion stupid you better be darned sure your grammar and spelling are on point. This is a message board not English class

Do they run out for Lou? Becuase that is an excuse too unless one believes in his infalibility. It is down right stupid, yes stupi .to look at Murton's situation and form the opion that "excuses start to run out". I don't feel like rehashing the details but sparing playing time is about the worst way to judge a player. Especially a palyer who has shown good production given regular playing time at every level he's played. Allright, since I'm stupid I guess I shouldn't respond. What role does Murton himself play? It is not all Lou's fault that he hasn't produced, that is what is stupid. He hasn't produced, playing time is possibly part of it, but not the whole reason. It's real hard to produce when your ass is on the bench. Or when this AB determines whether you get another AB. The manager's job is to put his players in the best position to succeed. Does Murton have to go 2 for 4 every time he plays? When he's got consistent playing time he's produced. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Do they run out for Lou? Becuase that is an excuse too unless one believes in his infalibility. It is down right stupid, yes stupi .to look at Murton's situation and form the opion that "excuses start to run out". I don't feel like rehashing the details but sparing playing time is about the worst way to judge a player. Especially a palyer who has shown good production given regular playing time at every level he's played.

But PM does have the Cubs in their "rightful place" and have been a good predictor. Again, this is not an exact science. Each of the three teams are within measurment error (+/- 4 wins). EDIT: Cards are +5, but that is close enough. Just throwing it out there, but don't you think +/- 4 wins is a pretty big margin of error? That's an 8 game swing, the difference between a pretty good club and an also-ran, or the difference between a mediocre club and a poor one. Not in a 162 game season. PM is not really used to judge a good team or bad team. It is simply a measurement model. It's a model that has shown to closely approximate true values. But with any measurement model random fluctuations in true values make measurement error inherent in the model. It's like weather forcasting or stock speculation or anything else that uses a model to make predictions. I haven't looked up PM data in the last few years so the measurement error might be a little different, but I suspect it will always be pretty close to what it was.

But PM does have the Cubs in their "rightful place" and have been a good predictor. Again, this is not an exact science. Each of the three teams are within measurment error (+/- 4 wins). EDIT: Cards are +5, but that is close enough.

Soto cannot be this good. I think the Cubs may have wasted a month or two of this guy being in the "zone". It a shame. He may never be this good again.

Just to add on to that. The most games he's played in CF in one season was 33. I suspect it was because of an injury. In all other seasons he's played CF in less than a dozen games/year.