stitchface

except in the top half of innings.

big zone

2 hour game?

nor is Miley. The race is on.

Where's Garza when you need him?

9-5 is not comparable to 24-6. Unless they now go 15-1

montgomery needs to get this horsefeathers out of his system. He's been terrible so far.

just call it.

Was that at Avaya? Was it hot? The season starts in two weeks so it's a little surprising they didn't bring the full roster but probably they were just saving them the airline trip. Alexis saw enough of San Jose this summer already!

Couldn't other relief pitchers pitch longer?

I don't think that is fact. "The cool thing about facts is that they remain true regardless of if you believe them" - Some guy, I dunno Good point - also true for what you believe.

The 1998 Yankees won 114 games for .704 winning percentage. The Cubs aren't winning 114 games (call me crazy, but I think they lose more than 11 games the rest of the year), so that's not us. And it officially just hit me how far we've fallen. So, if we improve, maybe we're back to 114 win team . . . alright, I gotta go!

For amusement's sake yes! First off, it's obvious hyperbole to say "no matter how good." Do you really believe that? Where did you come up with 20%? Did you game by game chances to win? Based on what? Historical? Measuring team strength by season record? I'm not convinced it would be linear based on season's winning percentage, which seems to be the most common method. Lets say you wanted to be extremely generous and say the Cubs had a 66% chance against each opponent in each playoff series. That's pretty absurd, but lets say they were just that good. That works out to a ~28% chance of winning the World Series over the course of 3 playoff series. I don't think any team vs. another team in a short series has that high of an edge, especially against playoff teams. I don't know - '98 yankees? '84 Tigers?

I don't think that is fact. To a degree worth arguing about? So what do you think the best team in baseball's (or the best roster you can reasonably construct, however you want to look at it) odds of winning are going into October? Assume HFA, as any best team in baseball would typically have. For amusement's sake yes! First off, it's obvious hyperbole to say "no matter how good." Do you really believe that? Where did you come up with 20%? Did you game by game chances to win? Based on what? Historical? Measuring team strength by season record? I'm not convinced it would be linear based on season's winning percentage, which seems to be the most common method.

I don't think that is fact.

yea, I thought that was really weird too. Sort of grasping for some stat . . .

The crapshoot thing isn't being overstated. It's still being understated. The very fact that people are making arguments for trading Kyle Schwarber for relief help in the playoffs is practically objective proof of this. The best way to maximize winning ONE World Series (nobody is saying anything about multiples) is to maximize your chances at making the playoffs numerous times. Having Kyle Schwarber for 5 years beyond this one does more to that end than Andrew Miller for a little under 2.5 (and, for that matter, Chapman for a little under half). Except they are already virtually in this year and have an ageing pitching staff. I think those two would make the pitching pretty dominant as it shortens the outings for everyone. At this point, who do you have confidence going deep into games? Lester? What is the marginal value? Are you considering leverage? Simply comparing projected WAR is over-simplification. Where is Schwarber going to play? Who is not going to play then? I understand your point and maybe you are right, but I think it's simplified too much. Having a better team in October does give you a better chance to win.

If there's any chance of him returning to form and if he's a throw in with Colome, I don't see the harm. A spot used on the 25 man roster that Almora or Szczur could be using. Definitely wouldn't trade for downgrades to the 25 man roster.

I understand that perfectly. Why not have both?

A measurable amount, huh? How much, exactly, would that be? I'm also curious to hear your explanation of why "the crapshoot thing" is overstated. If Miller and/or Chapman were on the team, would we have won the NLCS last year? What if the April/May version of this team is what we see in the postseason? We won 11-4 in series matchups in April/May (with one tie). That equates to .733333 of series matchups we won. What difference would Miller and/or Chapman have made, and is that worth Kyle Schwarber? If we trade Schwarber (which I would prefer doesn't happen), shouldn't we address that lack of pitching depth instead and get a controllable TOR pitcher? That contribution would be far greater, both this year and in the future. I would prefer a TOR starter also, but is that even an option? Who is it? I do think Games 2 and 3 of the NLCS might have turned out differently, or maybe starters would have thrown less and been more fresh. I don't think talking about last year's NLCS is especially meaningful. I think crapshoot is overstated because it isn't totally random, just difficult to predict. The impact of a dominating bullpen in a few short games could have a huge effect. Some games it might have none. But I don't think it makes any sense to say you don't have a better chance to win a short series with a dominating pen than without based on it being a crapshoot. Absolutely you have a better chance. I'm not the guy to put math to it though and I can see arguments to say its minimal. Its nonsense to say "its a crapshoot so it doesn't matter" though. When you're playing good teams, runs can be extremely important and having Chapman pitch the 6th instead of Travis Wood could swing the series.

Seems like the argument comes down to whether you think Chapman and Miller improve the WS chances this year and by how much. I think the "crapshoot" thing is now being overstated - having those two does improve your chances to win and probably by a measurable amount. Do you think keeping Schwarber improves the Cubs chances to win a world series more than getting those two relievers this year? For me, I don't care about multiple world series - I want one first. So, what gives the Cubs a better chance? Those two relievers in a year you know we'll be in the playoffs or Schwarber for the next 5? I have hesitation due to the lack of pitching depth - the rotation probably won't be as good for the next five years.

wasn't there a simpsons on the subject?

lol at chicagoans commenting that Seattle is humid . . .

20 over

How in the hell does Rondon have 4 blown saves?