third eye

We can wait for THT or BP to do a more detailed analysis, but as I said earlier, math is hard an I can't do that by hand. You are right that we do have a slightly better chance than the average team down 0-1 because we are a superior team to the Dodgers. And while we face a bad matchup tomorrow, we do have three straight pitching matchups that favor us. But the fact of the matter is, the Cubs are not a .750 team in the long run vs. the Dodgers, so there is no reason to expect it now. If we get it, great, but the odds are long. I agree with the fact that over a large sample size, we are not a .750 team against anybody. My only point is that sample sized go out the window in these cases. Hey (sarcasm intended), no team had won three straight games against three different opponents in 3 days before yesterday. I know that this is not the same story, but stats that cite success in that small of a sample size are bound to fail in predictive terms. Yes, the odds are against the Cubs now. But the odds in this circumstance are not that useful in predictive terms. What sample are you talking about? We have the entire sample of baseball history to tell us how hard it is to win 3 games out of any four. Dude, I agree with almost everything you've said. Except that grabbing small sample sizes from series (that determine the end of a season) and adding them together doesn't equal a large sample size. It can, if you introduce the right set of variables. But the conditional probabilities don't add up the same way. I won't take this argument any further, because, again, I agree with most of what you have said. I just don't agree with the predictive value, when it comes to 3-5 more games, is all that meaningful.

The crowd can't handle a deficit in the playoffs, they think the 99 years of previous failure are connected to today's performance. Clearly has a major effect on the players. I'm going to keep asking this question until I get an answer: How much epic underperformance under how long of a sample has to occur before we accept the fact that even some tiny portion of the things that remain consistent in the organization have an effect? 10 playoff games? 100 playoff games? 1000? OK, as much as I hate to admit it, there is an atmosphere created with expectations at the ballpark that has to have some, if even mildly marginal, impact on the players. It was there in game 7 in 2003. The atmosphere was rife with it last year in game 3 when I was there. To the extent that players are more likely to produce at career norms when the weight of boo's driven by decades of futility doesn't interfere, maybe...maybe there can be a marginal difference in performance. I kind of hate the fact that fans got on the team for its performance today. It probably doesn't cause a material difference in performance, but i agree that stress levels for the players can sometimes be exogenously determined. That matters more in a game like baseball than other sports IMO.

We can wait for THT or BP to do a more detailed analysis, but as I said earlier, math is hard an I can't do that by hand. You are right that we do have a slightly better chance than the average team down 0-1 because we are a superior team to the Dodgers. And while we face a bad matchup tomorrow, we do have three straight pitching matchups that favor us. But the fact of the matter is, the Cubs are not a .750 team in the long run vs. the Dodgers, so there is no reason to expect it now. If we get it, great, but the odds are long. I agree with the fact that over a large sample size, we are not a .750 team against anybody. My only point is that sample sized go out the window in these cases. Hey (sarcasm intended), no team had won three straight games against three different opponents in 3 days before yesterday. I know that this is not the same story, but stats that cite success in that small of a sample size are bound to fail in predictive terms. Yes, the odds are against the Cubs now. But the odds in this circumstance are not that useful in predictive terms.

Odds of winning tomorrow: Maybe 50/50 if we take an optimistic view of homefield advantage. We are down 0-1 and facing a bad pitching matchup. Seriously dude, do you take some joy in coming to this board and being a complete killjoy? I'm here to talk about the Chicago Cubs in as objective a way as possible. I'm sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. Were you not here all summer when I said the Cubs were clearly the superior team to the Brewers and would win the division going away? Or in 2006 when I said run differential showed we had a better than 50/50 shot of catching and passing the Brewers? The fact of the matter is that the Cubs' odds of winning the WS, or even advancing out of the first round, took a dramatic nosedive tonight, and there's no reason not to say that. I've actually been on board with most of what you've had to say the last two years. And you've provided good statistical reason to be. We are simply not in a place where the sample size of any of these measures can predict a whole lot. Jumping on or off the optimist/pessimist bandwagon just doesn't really do justice to the logical arguments that preceded the post season. Yes, the better players give you the better chance to win, and being down a game in a short series sucks. I just see very little predictive value in the historical precedents when you aggregate series. It's not the same thing.

Fairly good. Fair point, actually. Touche. Bad example (though I would debate it if in another thread). But seriously, the issue here is sample size. When you aggregate series, you aren't getting the same data set. The odds in my mind remain the same as flipping a 60% weighted coin heads 3 out of 4 times. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

That right now has the potential of being the dumbest thing that I have ever heard and I have listened to my fair share of Hawk Harrelson. Unfortunately, you can put your comment on the board as he would say. It's also perfectly accurate. So, statistically speaking, were the odds that the housing market would crap all over itself based on historical precedent. I'm not saying your line of thinking is wrong. Just that the parameters of the game have changed, and win probabilities in very small sample sizes, particularly if based on historical sampling, mean next to squat right now.

Yes, see the big 3 of the A's from 1999-2003 in the playoffs.

This is one where you have to buy the VOL rather than the rate stat story. I think Z either comes up huge or does his 2005-2007 April thing.

Anyone have the home/road splits post-ASB? Record, WHIP/OPS, anything else that matters...

Agreed. Any chance we can get the bhogg game thread pimp mojo working for tomorrow's game?

Man, I am pretty drunk. The sting of this one will be much worse tomorrow morning.

Wow , so much for the wind making this a pitchers game.

Seriously, the NBA realized this was bunk. Even MLB did when they switched the LCS to 7 games. I thought they were trying to figure out ways to reward the teams with the best regular seasons. Not space the LDS series so that teams with fewer wins can line up their best couple of pitchers to dominate a series.

Good approach Derrek

Well, the Cubs have made good bullpens look like fart other times this year. I'm still not done with this one.

Smart play by Dero

Nope. Kerry won that one. Nice silver lining. i think he meant nlcs oh shi.. Well, we lost game 1 of the NLCS, and we still had a chance to win the series, and took a 3-2 series lead. Of course, that's a best-of-7, not 5. But still, a silver lining of sorts. In fact we took a 3-1 lead, which would be peachy here.

where was that pitch? Also, the pitch to Manny was not a mistake

Nope. Kerry won that one.

How the hell did he hit that one so hard?

The Cubs are still not hacking. I have a feeling they will still put some runs on the board tonight, even given the strength of the Dodgers bullpen. It's up to the Cubs bullpen to hold it here.

awful at bat by Soriano

This is one of the very few Cubs teams I can remember that I actually have faith will mount a (real) rally.

ouch