Sammy Sofa
-
Posts
98,036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
206
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Sammy Sofa
-
Hey, I have no problem copping to what I don't understand about the game. Gooney is just gooney. -
Honestly, I can't wrap my head around that concept; it seems so simplistic to be based on runs scored and runs given up totals. I don't get how it's...nuanced (if that's the right word) like that.
-
It's important to remember that Kyle does not understand math and he is wrong. Oh come on, Kyle understands this clearly. Can someone explain it to me? Like if I had a 30 game season and we score 50 runs but 21 of those are scored in 1 game it would account for that? Then explain xFIP and BAbip.
-
I've stated numerous times I have zero clue how most baseball statistics "work" and generally just rely on being able to figure out what is good and bad in the individual categories (and a lot I don't even bother with because I can't grasp what the hell they're even supposed to mean no matter how many times I read it). With run differential I always just assumed that there was some kind of flaw in it because of outlier games and that the pythag projectons somehow adjusted for it, but I guess not.
-
Then I just have no idea how it works. Which makes sense, since I am terrible at math.
-
Ha! Awesome. Please, explain what is so "aggressively stupid" about not feeling better about the Cubs' pythag variance? Mostly the thing about a Frankenstein team playing worse than expected. It made no sense, and run differential vs. record has nothing to do with "playing worse than expected". That's like saying a player is hitting worse than expected because he doesn't have as many RBI's as his OPS would suggest. Then I simply didn't explain it clearly enough; I don't take solace in something like run differential (when it was in their favor) with a team like this, especially when it was heavily skewed by obvious outlier games. It's a monster of a team made up largely of crappy platoons and retreads and busts and deeply flawed starters; that's why they're yet again playing worse than predicted. It's not a surprise.
-
I mean, it's not like I'm saying it's a bull [expletive] predictive tool; all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be surprising when a shakily constructed team underperforms. Call it semantics, but I just take issue with people saying that they "should" have more wins like they've been losing a ton of close 1-run games or the bullpen has been blowing leads left and right.
-
Ha! Awesome. Please, explain what is so "aggressively stupid" about not feeling better about the Cubs' pythag variance?
-
Man, the playoff losing streak seems like such a distant thing to even try and shatter. I'm more depressed about them having to fight so hard just to be able to have player facilities that weren't outdated even before Capone died.
-
*Sigh* I REALLY hate the "only the Cobs" stuff, but it just feels like it has been seriously piling up in the last few years.
-
It is unusual. So far we're looking at 3 seasons of being consistently 4-5 games under the pythag projection. It's oddly impressive.
-
Oh, get over yourself. This is a bad team largely skewed by several ridiculous single game offensive outbursts with long stretches of putrid offense. Are we really going to act like it's so unusual that they end up under their projected records yet again?
-
But seriously, why do people talk about the pythag like it's practically set in stone? The way some react that the Cubs aren't at theirs it's like they want to explain it away via everything except, "well, it's just not a very good team." See also: run differential.
-
Really? I thought it was obvious I'm barely functionally [expletive] when it comes to baseball.
-
FWIW, I honestly think this is not only the bottoming out point, but that next year is going to be the best since 2009. What do you see the big developments being besides Bryant? If we're talking something like Bryant plus Stanton, alright, I'm on board.
-
The whole "it's the third year and they're going to have their worst year yet" part that really bothers me. I doubt even the most deluded "we gotta suck before can get better"-types thought that would have happened.
-
Citation needed. Basically stole my post from me. Come on, just vent about this, for once. I'm pretty sure it's unhealthy holding it in. You're like the one person here who hasn't.
-
Yeah, but you offset that by how many games they SHOULD have won. LOL Going forward, barring trades and injuries, the Cubs are much more likely to play to their .471 pythag than that .373 actual. That's a fact. But whatever, have fun doing that stuff I guess. 2/3 or more of this team is pretty much here to be traded on the off chance they're any good for a couple of months. Why even post 'barring trades' knowing that? Because the point is that the ridicule of pythag by mockingly referencing "games they SHOULD have won" is [expletive] stupid and makes you look like a meatball. Using the pythag as a crutch is equally pointless with a Frankenstein team like this; it's not like we're talking about a bunch of fulltime players likely to be around for a while. In this context it's just to make people feel better. It's not unusual at all when a team largely cobbled together with busts and platoon players and the like plays worse than "expected."
-
So now we're back to looking at it based on how they were rated before the trade as opposed to how it worked out. Whichever way works, right? It's mainly what they were at the time. You were the first to really go into what they later became and I argued that that package ended up being much better than what you made it out to be. Garcia and Gallagher were both top 100 prospects. Yeah, Donaldson obviously wasn't anywhere near the prospect Guillen was, but he's annihilating things now and has already had a season better than Guillen ever did and is still kicking ass, so I feel pretty confident looking at it being relatively comparable. The Astros were really good at the time of both trades, so it's not like they torpedoed themselves by going for it and not holding on to who they traded for or based on who they lost.
-
The Marlins aren't waiting until the end of Stanton's final year to trade him, and the Astros' trades for players they ultimately only had for playoff runs weren't really that bad given how good the Astros were.
-
It was the right move to make, as were the pickups for the Astros given the position they were in. In this day and age nobody is trading for Stanton at the end of his contract and running the risk they only have him for a playoff run.
-
So now we're back to looking at it based on how they were rated before the trade as opposed to how it worked out. Whichever way works, right?
-
Yeah, but you offset that by how many games they SHOULD have won.
-
Astros actually gave up quite a bit for Randy Johnson, IIRC. That was a different era, though. Meh. Guillen certainly hurt, but Freddy Garcia was Freddy Garcia. For a team in contention it certainly wasn't that bad at all. Freddy Garcia was pretty damn good (and actually did more for the mariners than guillen ever did) two prospects that became credible major leaguers for 2 months of randy johnson is pretty bad. johnson did make the best of it for them though. Well, yeah, if you're going by what they became vs. what they were rated at the the time. If we're going by what happened after the fact then the Cubs got absolutely raped in the Harden deal and they were looking for a similar need AND they got a whole extra year our of their target.
-
Good luck with all that, you cheap fartknockers.
